Skip to main content

Full text of "Dogs of American Aborigines"

See other formats


\jP Biodiversity 
fe^HeriUge 

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org 



Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 

Cambridge, Mass. :The Museum, 1863- 
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/2803 



V.63 (1919-1920): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96181 
Page(s): Page 431 , Page 432, Page 433, Page 434, Page 435, Page 436, Page 437, Page 438, 
Page 439, Page 440, Page 441 , Page 442, Page 443, Page 444, Page 445, Page 446, Page 
447, Page 448, Page 449, Page 450, Page 451 , Page 452, Page 453, Page 454, Page 455, 
Page 456, Page 457, Page 458, Page 459, Page 460, Page 461 , Page 462, Page 463, Page 
464, Page 465, Page 466, Page 467, Page 468, Page 469, Page 470, Page 471 , Page 472, 
Page 473, Page 474, Page 475, Page 476, Page 477, Page 478, Page 479, Page 480, Page 
481 , Page 482, Page 483, Page 484, Page 485, Page 486, Page 487, Page 488, Page 489, 
Page 490, Page 491 , Page 492, Page 493, Page 494, Page 495, Page 496, Page 497, Page 
498, Page 499, Page 500, Page 501 , Page 502, Page 503, Page 504, Page 505, Page 506, 
Page 507, Page 508, Page 509, Page 51 0, Page 51 1 , Page 51 2, Page 51 3, Page 51 4, Page 

515, Page 516, Page 517, Page 518 



Contributed by: Gerstein - University of Toronto (archive.org) 
Sponsored by: University of Toronto 



Generated 27 March 201 1 1 0:24 PM 
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/pdf3/006303000096181 



This page intentionally left blank. 



No. 9* — l)og^' of thr Anterlcan Aborigine^'. 



By Glover iL Allen, 



OOXIENTS 



liitiuil action .•.•,, 

AcknowJf'fl^niients . . • , 

Urigiu of the Di^iriestic Dog , 

Origin of Aniencan Dogs 

Broods of American Aboriginal Dogs 

Kskimo Dog .... 

PlainS'Indian Dog . . , , 

iSioiLx Dog . . . • • 

Long-liaired Puebio T^i^i, 

Larger or Coomion Indian Dog 

Ivlaniath -Indian Dog 

Short-legged Indian Dog 

Clal lam-Indian Dog 

Inca Dog . . . , , 

Long-liaired IiK-a Dog 

Patagonian Dog • , , , 

Mexican Hairless Dog 

Small Indian Dog or Tecliicld 

Hare-Indian Dog , ' . 

Fuegian Dog ..... 

Short-nosed Indian Dog (Pachyryon) 

Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog 
Summary ••*.., 
Bibliography . - . . • 

Explanation of the Plates 



Page. 
431 
432 
432 
439 
440 
44? 
449 
455 
456 
457 
463 
4&4 
469 
472 
475 
476 
478 
4S1 
491 
492 
495 
500 
503 
504 



IXTRODUCTIOX. 



When Coliunbus, in 1492, made his (liscoverx' of land in the Western 
Hejnispliere, he found it already peopled by a race of men who are 
considered by modem' ethnologists to be of Asiatic origin, and probal>ly 
of an antiquity dating back not many thousands of years. Yet these 
aboriginal peoples were considerably dixersified as to appearance^ 
language, and customs. In South America, the Incas had domesti- 
cated animals, llamas and alpacas, whose wild progenitors are the last 




4H2 BULLKTIX: Ml>iErM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY* 

reimiant of tlie once tli verse phylmn of American camels. There m 
110 good evidence, houever, that tlic liursc which survived in North 
Aiiu^rica till late Pleistocene times was ever known to tlie aborigines^ 
until its reintroduction by Europeans. Dogs they had, nevertheless, 
universally and in some variety. Yet at this late date it is lianlly 
possible to ilefine the various breeds or \ ariations with any exactness 
(»r to throw nnich light nn the question of their ultinuite origin. An 
attempt is made here to gather what information the earlier travellers 
recorded as to the appearance of the dogs of the American aborigines, 
and so far as may be^ to cliaraeterize the various breeds that can be 
distinguishcfi 

A bibliography is added giving the more important papers on the 
origin of the dog, and on prehistoric dogs of the Old World, as well as 
jeferences to the aboriginal dogs of America. 



ACKJVOWLEDGEMENTS. 

For the opportunity of studying dog-remains from various parts 
of the Xew World, I w^ould express my obligation to the Museum 
of Comparative Zoology; to Messrs. C, C. Willoughby and S. J. 
Guernsey of the Peabody Museimi; to ^Ir. G. S. Miller, Jr,, of the 
U- S. National Museum; Prof. F* B, Loomis of Amherst College; 
Prof. W. K. ]Moorehead, of Andover Academy; and Messrs* A, L, 
Kroeber and E. Vs\ Gifford of the JMuseinn of Anthropology^ of the 
Universitv of California, 

For interesting photographs of dogs, thanks are gratefully extended 
to Messrs. Ernest Harold Baynes, W. B. Cabot, C. T, Currelly, 
W. C. Farrabee, S- J. Guernsey, the Royal Ontario Museimiof Arch- 
aeology, and the American Genetic Association. 



Origin of the Domestic Dog- 

Tht^ proble^m of discovering the wild ancestor of the Domestic Dog 
has engrossed the attention of naturalists from the time of Buffon to 
the present. Basing their opinion on general external resemblances, 
the early systematists, Guldenstadt and Pallas, favored the Indian 
Jackal as the primitive stock whence the European dogs were derived. 
In this course they have been followed by many later writers, but more 
exact studies (Miller, 1912) show that the teeth of the Jackal may be 



ALLEN; DOGS OF THE AMEHH AN AHOHIGTXKS. 433 

tlistiMguislird !jy niMiiv iiiliun* (*hMraetiis (such as the broadly coii- 
tiniioiis outrr iun.uiihnn on nr and ifi^) fniiii tluisc of the Wolf and Dog, 
Gidley (1913) has illtistratrd iiion* full>* souir of the distingiushing 
tooth-churacttTs of stncral caiiids, iiuiuding fox, wolf, and coyote, 
and has grouped them into a key, from whic^Ii it is seen that domestic 
dogs and w'olves are essentially alike in the cusp-eharacters and pro- 
portions of tiieir teeth, and diU'er from coyotes and foxes in average 
fliaracters wliieh thongh slight, are apprreiable on direct eoinparison. 
Miller (1912, p. 313) concludes that in a series of dog-skulls *' repre- 
senting such diHerent breeds as the pug, fox-terrier, bloodhound, 
mastiff, ancient Egyptian, ancient Peruvian, Eskimo (Greenland and 
Alaska) and American Indian, the teeth are strictly of the wolf type''; 
and this assertion I can fnlK' endorse from a stndv of these and other 
breeds, ^^everthelessi though the Wolf and the Domestic Dog are 
closelv related, it does not follow that the latter is direct! \ derivetrl 
from the foimer, though even as lately as 1911, Trouessart has upheld 
the view first put forth Ijy Jeitteles (1S77), tliat the Indian Wolf 
(Catiis paUipi\^) might be the ultimate source of certain breeds of the 
Dog. Studer (190fi) suggests some hirge Dingo-like type as the lost 
ancestor; while Noack (1907) supposes that the original stock may 
have been identical with a small Chinese Vs(M of whic^h he possessed 
two specimens from Tchili, regarded as like the Dingo in color. Xeh- 
ring (1887) suggests that a small Japanese Wolf (C japonictis) is the 
living ancestor of the Japanese Street-dog, The Dingo itself is of 
doubtful origin, and though probably a relatively recent arri\'al in 
Australia, may have l>een broiiglit at the time the Continent was first 
peopled by man. Krefft (1866) believes he has identified its "first 
molar tooth . . . .with other fossil remains in tJie breccia of the Welling- 
ton caves/' while ^IcCoy (1S62) has "identified its bones mingled 
with those of recent and extinct animals all in one state of preserva- 
tion in the bone-caverns recently opened beneath the basalt flows at 
Mount ^Macedon/' In New Zealand, thmiestic dog-remains of a 
different breed are found associated with those of the extinct giant 
rails in the kitchen-middens and presumably came with the Maoris 
(Hutton, 1S98). 

The older naturalists maintained the \'iew that cross fertilitv was a 
test of specific identity, and recorded many cases in support of the 
contention that the Dog was fertile with Wolf and Jackab and that 
hence it was of such mixed ancestry. Thus, Hunter (1787) recorded 
the fertile cross between a male Dog and a female of the Wolf and of 
the Jackal, whence he concluded that all were of one species. A more 




4:U m LLKTIN": MUSKTWI of rOMPAUATIVK ZOOLiUa, 

recent iiivestiKatnr, (Kiilm, \HH7) records the fertility of Doi^-Jaekal 
h\ l>rids when eroi^stii inter se or hack crossed* In this case a female 
Fimiisli Bird-tbg was l*red to a i^aptive Indian Jackal {('aiih amriu 
indicns), producing three h'tters of four eaeli. All the young were 
much alike in appearance rescTuhling the Jackal, but were somewhat 
darker in color. One of the hybrids bred to a Siberian Dog produced 
beven young. Two other of tlie original liybrids were paired together, 
and produced a litter of three young after a period of sixty days' 
gestation ^- the noniud time for a dog- These young were darker 
than their purents, with a wash of gold.n along the sides ami on the 
lieadt recalling the Jackal's color. Unfortunately no careful study of 
the cranial and dental characters in th' hybrids was made. 

Tlit cTOSsing of Wolf and Dog has been frequently accomplished in 
captivity (Hunter, 1787, 1789). An instance of the fertile crossing 
of a Sil>erian SledgcKlog with a female Dingo from Australia is n- 
corded by KittV (19<1ft). The North American Indians and the the 
Eskinui are accredited with tethering female dogs in heat at a distance 
from camps tu obtain crosses with wild wolves, which though usually 
highly hostile to dogs, will at such times, it is said, hyl>ridi?:e. Ac- 
cording to Coues (1S73) and others, similar rru^thnds were used t>y the 
American Indians of the Phiins to obtain crosses with wild coyotes. 
Yet the e\'idence is not altogether conxineiiig that such cross-breeding 
was very general, o/that it has modifit^d the native dogs in anyway* 
It is noteworthy that the Anierican Indian is not given to the domesti- 
cation of Wolf ort'oyote puppies as might be expected if either were 
the prototype of his Dtigs, Xevertlicless (^oues (1873) and Packard 
(1885) on the ground of genfTa! external a])pt'arance have held that 
the common Indian Dog i^i North .Vmt^rica was merely a tamed 
Coyote; ami tlu*ir A'iew has gained wide credence. It may be con- 
fidentlv stated, however, from a studv (jf skulls and teeth, tluit this is 
not at all the case. Packard Mas j)erliaps influenced l>y Cope's 
(bS83, p. 242) statement that '*many of the dojnesticated dogs ha\e 
been derived "from the Wolf and the Covute, as found in the Pliocene 
deposits of the Re inil>liean River formations. The American Indian 
dogs, however, are true domestie dogs in skull-c haracters, and show 
no evidence of derivation from coyotes. 

Crosses between flnmrstic do^ and foxes have been less commonly 
reported, and even these reports seem to lack proper sulistantiation 
in most cases. B. Ross (ISfil) explicitly states that the dogs of the 
northern Indians could not be induced to cross with captive foxes, 
A supposed case is gix^en l)y Toni (1S97) of a natural Iiybrid, l>ut its 
ancestry as in onc^ or two oth( r cases, was merely conjecturab 



ALLEN: nOGS OV THK AMtCHirAN AHOHlCHNES. 435 

Wliilr some naturalists have thus s(>uj;ht to ilerive the l)uiut*stie Dog 
from Wolf, Jackal, (^oyote, or Fox, or from a mixture of two or three 
of these, others have maintaineil that it is quite as wvW entitled to he 
consiJereil a distinct species with its various artificial Ijreeds. Buffon 
was one of the first to support this view, Pictet (1S53, 1, p. 203-210) 
believed that dog-remains from eave-deposit^ in Europe probably 
represented the wild ancestor of domestic doj^s, antl to this wihl 
species lie gave the imant^ Canis ffuuiltarus fo.sslli.s. Tu this he was 
followed l\v Bourgui^niat (1875) who repirdefl the Prehistoric Dog as 
a species, related to the Wolf but coexistent with it in a wild state. 
He applied to it the naiuc CauLifcni''^, and concluded from the relative 
scarcity of its remains in the earlier strata of human culture, that it 
was at first seldom domesticated by the early cavt^-men. Remains of 
Pliocene canids from central France have been suggested liy Boule 
(ISS!^) as representing the progenitors of the Domestic Dog. 

Altliough the recent and more exact studies of Miller (1912, p. 313) 
and Gidley (1913, p. 99) have shown that the Domestic Dog may he 
distinguislied by dental characters from Coyote, Jackal, and Fox, its 
close relationship to the wohes is sho\\'n, as they point out, l>y the 
shorter and narrower heel of the lower carnassial in proportion to the 
length and width of the remaining part, the general bluntness and 
plumpness of the premolar and molar teeth and their cusps^ as well 
as by the shorter and' blunter canines. Other less constant but 
average distinctions are tabulated by the latter author. A noticeable 
character of the lower tooth-row in Wolf an<l Dog may also be men- 
tioned, namely, its distinctly outward bend at the junction of the 
molar and premolar series, whereas in the Coyote and the Jackal, the 
axis of the tooth-row is much more nearly a straight Kne, The 
presence of a minute second posterior cusp in addition to the cingu- 
lum in the fourth lower premolar is characteristic of Jackal and Coyote. 

The relationship of the Domestic Dog ha\ ing thus been found to 
be wholly with the ^^'olf, and not ^\itli Jackal or Co^'ote, it remains 
for future investigation to show what wolf-like ancestor was its wild 
progenitor. This, however, lies outside the scope of the present 
paper. Yet it may be said that no evidence lias hitherto been ad- 
duced that clearly indicates the origin of the Dog from any of tlie 
large wolves of circuraboreal distribution. In general the skull of 
the Dog is at once distinguished from that of the Wolf, apart from its 
usually smaller size, by the higher forehead of the foniier. That this, 
however, is due to greater development of the cerelirum through 
domestication has been suggested by Hammeran (1895), notwith- 




436 htlletin: miskim of co.mfarative zoology. 

standing: that doiiu\stinitit>n iti case of mnst animals serins latlitT to 
have a stnltifying effect. A n^r^vv <liaKnostir rharactrr is found in the 
size of tilt* teeth, whieh t ven in tht^ largest lireeds of tlogs are con- 
sidtTahly :snianrr than in The wolves. A fact of proI)ahle significance 
is tliat in wolvt^s as in* th(^ less modified hreeds of tltigs, e. g,, the 
Ameriean Indian dogs, tlie free posterior hortler of tiie palate ends 
about vn a line passing trans\ersely tlirough the middle of the last 
molar. In the large li reeds of European dtigs a traiisx'erse liiit* at the 
hinder margin of the palntf* usually falls consideral^ly behind the last 
molar, iiHlitating probably that the teeth have retained more nearly 
their original size relations than ha\ e the maxillary and other bones. 



A like condition is seen also in dogs in which the teetli are alinnrrna 
reduced in size, due probably, as in ease of the Chinese Chow Dog, to 
a diet of soft foods as rice and fish through many generations. These 
fat ts tend to indicate tliat the Dog and the large Wolf are really 
distinct species, and that the wild progenitor of the Dog was a small 
Wolf of a species distinct from the large woh^es of circumboreal dis- 
tribution. It is natural to look to Asia for this unknown ancestor, 
and it wovrld l)e valuable if the studies of Noack and Nehring as to 
the small wolves of Tchili and Japan might be more fully confirmed, 
Jentink (bS97} suggests the Wild Dog of Java as a representative of 
the original stock whence the Domestic Dog sprang. 

Attention should here be called to the possible efl^ect of domestica- 
tion in retincing the size and proportions of the Wolf. Apparently 
the only investigator to compare the skulls of wolves burn in captivity 
with thf)se of wild indi\ iduals is Wolfgrainm (1SP4), who states that 
the skulls of the captive-ljorn wolves are smaller in all proportions, 
broader and higher, with less developed muscle-crests. The snout 
is so shortened tliat pvt^ h forced to assuine a transverse position, 
the lower pnniolars are ind>ricate, while in size the carnassial as well 
3S the other teeth are said to be slightly reduced. Wolfgramm con- 
cludeB that this is stifficient proof that the Dog is derived from the 
European AVolf, and that its smaller ske is a direct result of its do- 
mestication. The facts, however, do not warrant such a conclusion. 
The redTicfd <]zp of the skull irnd the crow ding of the teeth in captive- 
bom wolves are probably a result of improper nutrition during growth 
and lack of exercise und^r (*onfincment, comlitions AvholK- different 
from the free life of a dog unrler dom€\stication. The crowTling of 
the premolars is (juite as alvnormal for a dog as for a wolf, and occurs 
through failure of the maxillary bones to att-ain their proper grow^th, 
while the Xvvxh themselves attain their size independcMitly. 



ALLEN : IHKiS OF THK AMKHfCAX AHnUHaXES. 4'i7 

\\ liile some authors have ronsidtTeil tliat modern du^s are poly- 
phyletie, and would I race the aiu'estry of the hirger hreeds to \Vf>Ives 
and of the smaller to foxes t^Woldrit h, 18S(>a, even suggests the Fen- 
nee!), it seems more reasonaltle to derive them all frrmi a medium- 
sized dog through seleetive breeding:. Nevertheless it is possible to 
divide modern lireeds into some four to six groups, lja?;ed mainly on 
size and minor rxternal eharacters as eret^t or lop-(/in\s. tlroopinji: or 
eiirled-up tail, ete. ( u\ier (1S06; Ijelieved lliat the Fieneli Sheep- 
dog approached the wihl prototype most nearly of all domestic 
bret^ds, and considered the Australian Dingo as the most primitive 
true dog. The eharaeters considered primitive are ehietiy the mt^dium 
size, the erect, wolf-like ears, unshortened snout, drooping and 
moderately haired tail, and low forehead. The abilitv to bark is 
often considered an acquired trait; and tlie more primiTive dogs, 
such as the Eskimo, howl Hke wohesmore than the\' tiark. 

Historic evidence as to the ancestry of the Dog does not carry the 
matter far enough. Tlie Egyptians had dogs as far back as the records 
go — certainly four to fi\e thousand years before the Christian era. 
The same is apparently true of the Chinese, whose history goes l>ack 
nearly as far. Lortet and Gaillard (1909) recognize four Ijreeds of 
dogs among the nnimmified remains from Assiout, Fitzinger (1S66) 
has suninuirized the ancient history of dogs known from the earliest 
writings of Rome, (Jreeee, Assyria^ and Egypt, Yet it is clear that 
at the dawn of history, the nations of Europe, Asia, and North Africa 
had dogs of several breeds, more or less characteristic of each people. 
Thus the Greyhound type seems especially prevalent in FIgypt and is 
to this day associated with the desert-loving races of PtTsia and 
northern Africa. 

European archaeologists lia\ e made manv diseoxeries of dog-re- 
mains in association with bones and implements of prehistoric man, 
particuhirly in the caves and old Lake^hvelHngs.of southtTii Eunipe. 
HithtTto at least eleven different Latin names have been applied to 
as many supposedly distinct prehistoric dogs of Europe. Anutschin 
(ISSl) announced the discovery of the first dog-remains to be found in 
Russia. Parts of fourteen dog-skeletons were found in building the 
Ladoga C/anal, anrl represent two types which he names respecti\'ely 
Cams familians paliistris fadogvim.s, and C. /. iuo.siranzeivH He con- 
siders these to be of the Stone Age, and that the former is closelv allied 
to the Siberian and Northwest American Sledge-dogs — (Eskimo). 
The latter he thinks very similar to the f\ mafn8-optimai\ a deer- 
hound dike type, from the Bronze Age, or e^en earlier fXeolithic. 



43S HiLiJ/rix: miski m i>f compaeativf zoology. 

according td Xehriiig. 1SS3), Dog-reniaiTis, associated with a hmnan 
skeleton and palaeolithic iiiipk^inents, were describe J by Studer (1906) 
as Cauib' imutiatini, and were tliscovered while digging a street near 
Gute Bologoie in Russia- This was as large as a medium-sized Sheep- 
dog and is believed by tliis author to be the fore-runner of C ifder- 
mediius of the Bronze Age, whicli is possibly a hound. 

In the Swiss Lake-dwellings occur skulls of a smaller type of dog 
named by Riitimeyer Cajiis palusfris, a breed characteristic of the 
later Neolithic and the Bronze Ages, in Europe, 5,000 to 7,000 years 
ago. Another Neolithic Dog of small size (skull length, 158 mm.) is 
described by Hue (1900) from (lairvaux. Jura, as Cams Ic mirei, while 
still another of dwarf proportions, C. mikii, is considered by Studer 
(1906) as a fore-runner of C. paludrts. The same autiior (Studer, 
1901) sees much resemblance between skulls of C jjalustris and those 
of Chow and Spitz. Undoubtedly the Chow is a rather ancient type, 
in many ways recalling the F^skimo Dog in its erect short ears, 
broad nmzzle, small eyes, bushy mane, and curled-up tail carried 
stiffly o\er the hip. ^Measurements of skulls of Chows given by 
Studer are slightly larger than those of C\ palmiris. 

No less than four breeds of dogs are recognized by Strobel (1880) in 
human culture laxers transitional from the Neolithic to the Bronze 
Age in Emilia, Italy. One is the small C. palw^tn.^ wide-spread in the 
btone Age of Europe; the second is C intrrmedhis, a larger dog sup- 
posed to be a hound; the tliird is the larger C. mafrj.sH)ptimac, re- 
garded l>y Studer (1901) as of tJie Collie and Sheep-dog (Wolf-<iog) 
type, while the fourth is a Dog smaller than pfAlustn'f?, and believed to 
be of a distinct breed which Strobel names C. spalefti Remains of 
the first three of these breeds are recognized by Woldrich (1898) from 
culture la\ ers of middle Neolithic times in caverns of Bohemia. 

From these Ijrief accounts of discoveries of prehistoric dogs it is 
clear that at a ^ery early period of human culture there were at least 
two or three types under domestication in Europe. It need not be 
supposed, as some authors have done, that these types are of local 
origin. Europe, as a peninsula of Asia, probably received its dogs as 
well as its human population in part at least from the East. Possibly 
then, as now, certain breeds of dogs were characteristic of different 
invading tribes. 



ALLKN: DLXiS OV TUK AMKKH AN Ai.itMilULN KS, 4^10 



Origin of American Dogs. 

Wry little attention has been pai<! to the dogs of the Ameriran 
Aborigines. At the present day it is probal>ly too late to find pure- 
bred examples of most of the local \ arieties that fiujuerly (leeurred. 
Barton (1S05) was about the only Anieriran naturalist to give murh 
thought to the matter, l>ut the few notes he collecterl were taken 
mostly at second-hand and were rather indefinite, roue^* (ope, and 
Packard, as well as many writers following thein, considered that the 
domestic dogs of Am erica must hixve been deri\-ed from tlie Cojote, 
or from some other indigenous species of North or South America* 
Cope was the only one who made an examination of tlnv teeth. In a 
fragment of a lower jaw from Florida, Cope (1S93) made particular 
note of the al>sence of the first premolar anil remarked on tlic large 
size of the metacoi\id and the entoconid of the lower carnassiuL It 
is true that in a large percentage of American nati\e dogs the first 
premolar is absent from the lower jaw. A similar anomaly is occasicm- 
ally seen in wolves and in European dogs, but is rare. It is usually 
considered tliat tht* first premolar in dogs is without a milk prede- 
cessor, lint though this is often true, it is not a1wa> s the case. A 
jaw of a very young dog in the Museum collection, shows very small 
milk-teetJi capping the pennanent first premolars whit^h are nearl\^ 
erupted. A similar case is reported by Lataste (1888). The entire 
suppression of the first premolar, particularly in the lower jaw, in 
a hirge percentage of American dogs, is possibly a retention of the 
usual early condition^ in whicli there is no first milk pn^molar. 

The important paper of I.oomis and Young (1912) and the reports* 
of Xebring on dogs from ancient Peru\ian Inirials Cfmiprise most of 
the work that has been done in the comparative dental and osteologi- 
cal stiidv of -Vmerican dogs. There are, howexer, brief notices of the 
discovery of prehistoric dog-remains and early accounts of certain 
native dogs by travellers, the more important •of wliich are included 
in the Bil)liography (p. 504-517), Miller (1912) seems to have been 
the first to show that the teeth of American al)original dogs are those 
of tnie dogs rather tlian of co\ote^ or wolves. This I have verified 
from a coasiderable mass of material from North America and Peru, 
so that there can be no question l>ut that the domestic dogs of botii 
Old and New ^Vorlds are closeh' related and of common ancestry, 

4. * 

It follows that instead of having domesticated various dog- or fox-like 
species of the American continents, the peoples of the Xew Worlrl 




440 BrLLKTIN: MrsFJM it¥ tOMFAKATlVE ZOOLOGY. 

must havr hro!i*:lu tlii^ir do^^s with them, prt*suiiial)ly from Asia, iind 
this proljiihly at a t^ultiirr stajjc prior to the (loiuestitation of other 
aiiiiiials, at Irast in ilir Norllu since no (>th€*r ciomestic annual is corn- 
moo to the peoples of hoth lieitnspheres. The Asiatic r>rijrin of Ameri- 
can (logs lias pr(*\ious!\ l>eeti sniijjested Ijv Mercer ( 1S1)7, p. 1211) and 
Wissler (]9!7). 

The prohahility tht^refore is, that the IJomestic Dojj: originated in 
Asia and was carried hy primitive man })oth east and west into all 
parts of the iidiahited worhL That tliis migration began in Uitc 
Pleistocene times seems higlily pn>hal>le. 

In the Western Hemisphei^e tlnve typt's oF dogs ioay in m very 
lieneral way he (Ustinguishefl: — (1) the hirge wolf-like Eskimo Dog 
of tlu* Arctic countries, strong, powerfully built, with broad muzzle, 
erect ears, urn] hirgc linshy tail curled forward o\Tr the liip; (2) a 
smaller type, ^'arying more or less in size and proportions, w^ith erect 
ears but a th'ooping tail; and (3) a much smaller type, the size of a 
terrier, heavy of bone, usually with shortened rostrum as seen among 
the tribes of the Southwest or again, apparently iTHire slender both in 
limb and skull as in southern ]\Iexico or parts of South America, 
South of the Eskimo countr\ % the two latter types of dogs are char- 
acteristic, and seem to have occurred together over much of their 
range, so that traxellers often mentioned a "wolf-like" and a "fox- 
like'' dog among the Indians of both North and South America. 
In this connection, it is interesting to recall Kohler's (189G) statement 
that in eastern Asia, between the provinces of Gansing and T ssuri, 
the (Chinese have small fox -like dogs, a comparison of which with the 
small American <logs would be of interest. The smaller American 
dogs of the slender ti^pc (Techichi) seem not \ ery different from the 
Did World C, ijahisfn\9, and may be not remotely related. The more 
heavily built small dogs with shortened faces and shorter, stouter 
liiid)-bones, are perhaps derixed from the more slender type, and 
possi!)ly owe certain of their peculiarities to cross-breeding with tlie 
larger dogs* tliough t+iis is at prc^sent wholly conjectural. 



liKKEDS OF AmKHRAN ABOm<JIXAL DOGS. 

Whih' in ;i very general way it may be said, that excluding the 
Eskimo Dog, the Amc^rican Indians harl domestic dogs of two chief 
types, a larger and a smaller, there were apparently sundry local breeds 
of these, probably conforming in distribution with tlic general areas 



atj.en: dogs of thk amkukan ABORrciNEH. 441 

occupied by the groups of tribes amnngst which they were IcHind, 
In the foHowiiig pages an attcniiit is niadr to (h^iiie such of tlit^sr 
breeds as seem to he indieated by tlie frag] nin tar v aeeoniits of 
travellers us well as by the study of what skeletal remains have l>een 
available. No duul)t the luuaber of lu'eeds reeogiiizetl is subjt^ct to 
revision, for it has beeTi found (Hffieidt to determine with any approach 
to certaint\" in some eases, what external and sk(^let;d characters are 
to be associated, and in how far certain supposed breeds are mongrel 
or rrlatively pure. Again, the skeletal characters may frequently fail 
to give any clue to external traits that would l)e distincti\e. More- 
over, wliile the tenn *' breed" is applied to these locally distinct forms 
of dogs, it is not assumed that the .Vnierican natives made any con- 
scious effort to change or keep constant the traits of their dogs; 
possibly some of the variations are merely the result of a certain 
mongrel mating, going on quite independent of human in ten t^ so that, 
as in case of the Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog, the \ aria t ion cropped out 
only occasionally and may or may not have been purposely preser\'^ed. 
Nomenclature. — The bestowal of Latin names upon the diiferent 
brecdti of dogs recognized has here been purposely avoided, as it 
seems unwise to extend to such artificial variations the systematic 
recognition accorded natural species and subspecies. Nevertheless, 
Latin names or Greek letters have been used bv other writers to indi- 
cate domestic breeds, and such names lia\^e been applied in many 
ways: — as trinomials, quadrinomials, or quinquenomials; some- 
times separated from the binomial, Cmiw familiaris^ by a comma or 
the abbreviation " var./' or otherwise used in such a wav as to cause 
doubt as to their technical standing in systematic nomenclature. 
Some names of dogs have been erected in a strictly binomial fashion 
and if accorded standing, conflict with other names. Thus Riiti' 
meyer's Canis palustris (1863) of the Lake<hvellings is preoccupied 
by von Meyer's Canis* (= Oalecipius) palustris (1843). The name 
Cmiis 7ncxicaniis currently used for the Mexican Wolf pro\ es to apply 
to the ]Mexican Hairless Dog only. Hodgson's Cams laniger (1845) 
for a Thibetan Wolf is preoccupied by Hamilton Smith's Canis kmigcr 
(1S40) for the Nootka Sound Dog. Other eases might be added. 
The practice of using standard English (or vulgar) names for all arti- 
ficial breeds is therefore to be recommended. With the descriptions 
following, a list of Latin names applied by previous writers is given 
under each breed. 



442 



IULLKTIN: MrSELM 0¥ tUMPAliATlVK ZOOLOGY, 



ESKIMO Dog. 



IS 17. Canis familiaris sibiricu^ groenlandicvs Walther, Hand, p. 27 {fide 
Fitziiigen; not Conis groenlandicua BecJijatein, 1799, q. e. Alopex). 

IS20, C.f. var. n. Jmrealis Destiiarest, Maiiini,, 1, p. 194, 

1840- Cams brnTolis Hannlton Sinith, JanJine's Nat, library* Mammalia, 
10, p. 127, pL 2. 

Characters'. — Size large, appearance woli-Uke^ but with less oblique 
eyes, less attenuated niuxzle^ and more elevated forehead; tall usually 
earried curled forward ovvv the hip: teeth much smaller than tliose of 
the AVolf, Pela{ie thick, with a shorter under fur overhiid with longer 
hair which on the shoulders may be as much as eight inches long; tail 
busliv* Color whitish, more or less clouded on the back, with tluskv, 
or varvinK to black, or black and white, or rareh' tan and white. 

Distribution.— The Eskimo Dog was originally found in Arctic 
.Vm erica coextensiveh witli the Eskimo tribes from the barrens of 
-.AJaska to Labrador, chiefly along tht^ coast. In the east it was 
prol)ably at its southern limit on the east coast of Newfoundland, and 
thence ranged northward, accompanying its Eskimo masters, to Smith 
Sound, Greenland. In Greenland it formerly was found along the 
west coast southward, witJi the natives, but the present-day sledge- 
dogs of the Danish settlements are probably largely mongrel, through 
interbreeding with dogs introduced from Europe (Brown, 1S75) ; and 
the same is true of those in Alaska and southern Labrador. 

Extenifd ^IcamrernenU.' — An Eskimo Dog brought back by Parryj 
on his first vo^^age, is figured by Children (1827) wdio gives its dimen- 
sions as follows: — 



28 inches about 71 cm. 



it 



a 



Length, occiput to rout of tail 

** ** end of nose 
of tail (about) 
Total length (therefore about) 
Length of ear 
Eyes to point of nose 
Standing height at shoulder 



These figures do not indicate a very large animah The very thick 
coat, especially on the shoulders, givas an increased appearance of size 
not well borne out by skeletal measurements. It should be kept in 
mind, that since the advent of Europeans, much attention has been 



11 


u 


ti 


28 


U 


IS 


i( 


a 


45.7 


ii 


r>7 


ii 


i( 


145 


(t 


3 


ti 


Si 


7.7 


ii 


4 


(( 


<£ 


10 


ti 


24 


ii 


u 


61 


a 



ALLKM DOCS OF THK VMKHH AX AHOKKilNKS. 44*i 

ji;iven to inerea^^iiiif^ the size unil stirngtli u( tlii.sc iiDrtlieni dogs fur 
drauglit purposes. It is likely that the hir*;e wolf-like Eskinu) Dokh 
now eoiiiinon in the North, are conf^iflerahlx differetit from the orif^iiial 
stoek fmind hv the earK Arctic explorers. 

Figures. Children, J. G. Zook joiirn., 1827, 3, pk 1, From Parn^'s first 

voyage- 

Audubon, J. J. and Badinmn, J. Q\iadrii]H^d8 of Xortli Ani(Ti<-a, 1848, 3, pL 

113^ Zoological Gardens^ London. 
Smith, C. Hamilton. Jardine's Nat. library. Mammalia, 1S40, 10, ]>1. 2. 

Prince's Street Gardens, Edinbur|j;h. 

Cramal Charadrrs, — Ainnn^LX the various skulls of so-called Eskimo 
Dogs examined, there is more or less disparity of size. This is no 
doubt an iudication of the extensi\'e crossing witli European dogs 
that has been carried on for a long period with a view to iinprovinfr 
the speed and strength for which this dog is useful. Skulls from 
eastern Kanitschatka are small, others from Alaska anil Mackenzie 
are of superior ::ize. It is therefore difficult at the on f set to determine 
w^hat the original Eskimo Dog of North ^bnerica was really like. It 
is notable, however, that the teeth, even of the largest skulls are not 
much larger than those of medium-sized skulls^ M'liile in no c ;! ^mIo they 
approach the niagnilude of the Wolf's teeth. It would be of the 
utmost interest, in this connection, to compare the teeth of a known 
liybrid between the Eskimo Dog and a Wolf. Yet in spite of the fre- 
([uency ^\dtli which this cross is said to occur, there seem to l)e few 
skulls available. Windle and Humphreys (1S90, p, 9) give the ratios 
of different parts of such a skull to the basicraniul axis. 

For lack of a more authentic standard, I have taken as t\-pical of 
the Eskimo Dog, portions of a skull (M. C. Z. 10,537-10,539) ex- 
humed by Dr. M. P. Porsild from an old village site at Sermermiut, 
west Greenland. Wliile not of great size, this skull is notable for its 
Inroad palate, rather prominent trough-like depression between the 
frontals, and the high strong sagittal crest, yet is the surface of the 
brain-case comparatively smooth. Nearly similar is the skull of an 
Eskimo Dog from Hebron, Labrador, collected in 1897. Its wide 
palate and stout teeth are particularly noticeable as well as its strongly 
developed crests and broad forehead. 




W4 



BrtI.ETIN: Ml'SEI'M OF COMPAItATU K Z(jr>LOGY. 





M. C.Z. 


M.C.Z. 


U.S.N.M. 


Mi-ii.-iurenitml* of l!ie SktilU 


10,538 


7.40tJ 


83.869 




Crepnland 


Lubrador 


naflin Lund 


Up|>er tooth-row, alveolus of i^ to m* 


96 


105 


96 


"r tom'^ 


SI 


87 


79 


" // to m- 


68 


66 


66 


" ;j^ to m^ 


62 


59 


58 


** ** '^ '^ /y^^ to nr- 


1^ 


19.5 


- 19 


Ixngth of carna^ssial, //"* 


19.5 


21 


21 


Witlth of pakite outside m^ 




75 


69 


Palatal length, alveolus of i^ to median edg;e 


98 


9 

w 


94 


Lower jaw, alveolus of ii to m^ 


97 


105 




'' c to m. 


89 


99 


' 


" pi to nn 








'' }H to mz 


72 


74 




"p^tom. 


61 


62 




" P4 to mz 


50 


49 




" m, to tm 


37 


37 




Length of eariiassial, mi 


22 


23.6 




Width across postorbital piwesse?^ 


64 — 


52 


52 


** ** zygomata 


125 






" " occipital condyles 


45 , 


49 


43 



Nathusius (1874) reports on ten skulls found near old Eskimo huts 
in Jackson and Sabine Islands^ Greenland, The largest of these had a 
basal length of 189 mnu, the smallest 175 mm. In skull U. S. N. M. 
83,869 the basallength is 170 mm., the condylobasal length ISO mm., 
which may be the same dimension as the *^ basal length*' of Nathusius, 

In a series of nine skulls of Eskimo Dogs from Greenland^ Baffin 
Land, Labrador, Mackenzie, Alaska, eastern Siberia and Kamt- 
schatkn, rollected for the most part many years ago, it is notable that 
most are of about the same size as those of the Common Indian Dog* 
One or two from eastern Siberia are the smallest and most slender* 
All are heavy of bone, yet the sagittal crest does not show the strong 
backward overhang seen in the Wolf's sknlL The muzzle in most is 
broad, yet this varies. The largest skull of all (U. S. N. M. 8,222) 
collected by Dr. W. IL Dall at Nulato, Alaska, is nearly as long as a 
small Wolf's, yet the teeth do not approach those of a Wolf in size* 
This and other large skulls of Eskimo Dogs, probably are the result of 
crossing with large dogs of European origin. Hearne (1796) speaks 



ALLHX: DOGS OF THE AMLlil* AX AH*iHH;(\KS, 445 

of thf IdV^v Ktv^VxsU dotjs at the Kurt on Hudson Hav; |{o^.s U-S^ili 
notes the cros^^iag of Eskuiio Dogs with iniporterl PninUTs; and 
Harmon (1SlH)i rrrords that hy the earl\ part nf the hisi eeiiturv. 
large do^^^ impr^rted from the Knjfhsh settlements of Xevvfonndhind, 
had aheadv l)eeii iiitrnclueed in the fur eountries as far west as the 
Roeky 3l(Hnitains. It seejns apjiarent tliat the htrge size of some 
present-(hiy Kskhnct I logs is theref^n^ Auv to the influciRrni" iuiported 
stcK*k, and that prnhably the ahoriginal Kskiiuo Dog was ni>t a nnieli 
larger aninuil than tlie Cyiuiaou IiuHan Dog. T!ie thick eoat, how- 
ever, often achls niueh to its apparent size. 

It seems to he somewhat charaeteristie of the Eskimo Dn^; that tlie 
posterior narial opening (interpterygoid fossa) is broader and shallower, 
less contracted at its rearmost portion, than in dugs of otiier breeds, 
possibly correlated with their use in lianhng and consetiuent need f<ir 
deeper breathing. In this respect, however, there is some variation; 
yet in certain hirger skulls which are presumably of mongrel dogs, the 
more narrowed and deepened fossa is obvious. 

Thorndike (1911), in an interesting article on th<* Indian sled-dogs 
of North Ajnerica, doubts if pure-l)!noded Eskimo or '* Husky*' Dogs 
are today fnund in North America except pu^slblv^ about the Copper- 
mine Ri\'er, Banks Land and Wolhiston Land. **In general, the 
Eskimo Dog diifers from the Indian variet\- in being ]iH>r(^ wolfish and 
in ha\ ing less European strain. His tail is more liushy and he is 
cleaner-legged. His ears are more erect am! pointed, while his body 
is larger in size"— this in comparison whh the mt)ngrel dogs of the 
northern forest Indians of the present day. 

Origin. — From its evident similarity of appearance to the Siberian 
Sledge-Dog, it is generally accepted that tlie two are of similar origin. 
The Siberian Dog seems indeed to differ in little except possiblv its 

1*11 In-- * ir *. 

snglitly smallci^ size. Dogs of the same type are found across northern 
Asia into Lapland, ^\lience certain aiitliors iia\e concknled that the 
Eskimo Dog was undoubtedlv brought from the Old World l)v the 
Eskimo tlit'msel\-es, who Jiiust already have known how to use them 
in liarness. This view seems on the whole very prohaljle. The 
ultimate derivation of the Eskimo Dog and the so-called Spitz Dogs 
in general, is howe\er, still obscure. Some form of Wolf is commonly 
looked to as the remote ancestor of the breed thougli direct proof is 
not available. Holland (190S, p. 232) has even gone so far as to 
suggest that certain well-preserved jaws discovered in a Pleistocene 
cave-deposit at Frankstown, Pennsxlvania. may from their resem- 
lilance to those of an Eskimo Dog, have come from a wolf-like ancestor 




44(1 lU'LLETIM MISKIM OF ( OMHAHATIVE ZOOLOGY. 

of this breed. The assoeiatetl fauna, iRuvexer, is of a more southern 
character than wouhl he expeeteil as conipanioiis of this Arctic dog. 

Of the hirger do;js of the New World, the Eskimo Dog is the only 
one that habitually carries its tail curled foi'v^'ard over tlie hip* This 
character, striking as it is, dues not seem to have been particularly 
studied from the standpoint of herital)ility, to see if it behaves as a 
Mendrh'an character when contrasted with a drooping taih Yet it is a 
highly important trait, and is foujid not only amonir tlic dogs of similar 
appearance in the north of Asia and Europe, but in other varieties, 
possibly related, antl of more southern habitat in those continents. 
The so-called Chow Dog of f liina, a medium-sizefl red, or sometimes 
black (^Kreyi nberg, 1910) tlog, with erect ears and powerful shoulders has 
the same sort of taih A similar, though sliglitly smaller dog standing 
50 cm, high at the shoulder is found arnoiig the Rattaks of Sumatra 
(Studer, 1 90 1 , p. 31 ). The same curled tail is found in the Pomeranian 
Dogs, that appear in tlic^ decoration of Greek vases (Keller, 1909) or as 
figurines of M\cenian times. The fact that the curled tail carried 
over the hip is so widt ly characteristic of certain l>reeds of Old World 
dogs, where it seems to have been known from ancient times, implies 
that it originated there and strengthens the view that the Eskimo 
Dog came from Asia with the Eskimo. The contention that " the 
canine of the American aborigine, or Amerind, was simply a tame 
wolf, differing from its wild l)rother in the qualities that would nat- 
urally follow breeding in the semiKloniestication of the savage" and 
that the dog **bred by the Indians in the forest regions, and the 
Eskimos, was always derived from the Gray w^olf^' (Thorndike, 1911), 
seems only remotely true. There is nmcli e\idence, though of a 
somewhat uncertain cliaracter, that wild male Wolves will breed with 
female Eskimo Dogs at proper seasons, and the northern Indians are 
said to encourage such occasional crosses. Thorndike states that 
tame w olves are sometimes seen in harness wdth tlie dogs in the North. 
Nex'ertheless, under usual circinnstances, those who have lived in 
Arctic countries agree that wolves are liighly unfriendly with the dogs, 
and a single wolf is more than a match for several dogs. There seems 
to be no evidence tliat Wolf cubs were habitually reared by either 
Eskimo or Indian, which one would expect to be the custom if the 
Eskimo Dog is merely a Wolf, tamed. Hearne (1796) mentions that 
some Indians, on finding a Wolf's den, fondled the little cubs, and 
painted their faces with icnnilion, Imt returned them to the den and 
Tiuide no attempt to rear them. He adds (p. 362) that *' all the wolves 
in Hudson's Bay are very shy of the human race, yet w^hen sharp set, 



ALLKX: DOCiS 0¥ THK AMKPK'AX VlJOKNilXKS. 447 

they frequently follow the Indians for several duys, liut always keep 
at a distance. They are ^reat enemies to tlu^ hidian dogs, and fre- 
quently kill and eat those thai are ht^avily hmded, and (■ann*)t keep n|) 
with the main hod\/* 

A comparison of a\uilahle skulls indicate;;* that those of Eskimo 
Dogs from eastern Labrador and W(*stern Greenland are eonstantly 
smaHer than those of eastern wolves, the teetli markedh* smaller. 
European investigators (Studer, litOI ; Anutschin, 188 1; Woklrich, 
1SS2) ha^^e described skulls and otluT bones of large dogs from deposits 
of the later Stone Age — Xeolithic ^ one or two of which, the so-called 
r. /, ino.'ffranzcw}, C. / ladognwis, seem to be large animals much like 
Eskhno Dogs, and are considered as belonging to the same group, 

Eiffe (1909) records a crossing of the Australian Dingo with an 
Eskimo Dog, in the Hamburg Zoological Gardens, The Dingo, a 
female, was an unusually pale reddish brown animal; the dog, a black 
East Siberian Sledge-Dog, The eight pups of this litter were more 
reddish in color than their mother, ^\'itli slightly bushy tails^ some^^^hat 
bowed upward- The old Dingo then paired with one of these reddish 
dogs> and produced eight young, five ^ery pale like herself, three 
darker red. The ears of all the young were not at first erect> but 
became so in the course of five months- 

Notes, — The accounts of the early voyagers leave no doubt that 
these large dogs w ere companions of the Greenlanders and American 
Eskimo before the coming of Europeans. Their use by the natives 
as sledge-animals piakes them of prime importance in the Arctic 
conditions under which they live. Cranz and Egede, early Danish 
missionaries to Greenland, mention the dog-teams, and the latter 
author gWes a crude figure. Scoresby in his Greenland Journal, (1823^ 
p. 203) relates finding at Jameson*s Land in eastern Greenland, the 
skull of a dog in a small grave, probably that of a cliild. The Eskimo 
of this part of Greenland must have hacl verv little contact with 
Europeans up to that time. Cranz, in his History of Greenland » 
alludes to this custom of the natives, who believe that by laying the 
head of a dog beside the child's grave, the animal will show the igno- 
rant babe the way to the Land of Souls, for a dog can find its way 

ever\^where. 

1. 

Among early accounts of the P2skimo Dogs, several of special inter- 
est are gi^en in Hakluyt's ^ oyages. In The second voyage of 
Master ^lartin Frobisher, made to the West and Northwest regions, 
in the yeere 1577 (Hakluyt's' \'oyages. Everyman's Library ed., 

5, p, 137), it is related that a landing party at York Sound examined 




44s BriJ/KTix: mtski m of compakativk zoiii.ocjv: 



xhv ilvM'rivd ttiits of thv Eskinins, * in>t taking any thuijj; of theirs 
except cine ciiigge." The possessions of these people are deseriI)tH], 
inchidiTi^ ** also do*rj;es like nntn wonlves, liiit for tiu^ most part black, 
uith otluT trifles, more to be wondieil at for their strungenesse, 
then for any other eommoilitie iieedet'nl! for our use/* Again, "they 
frank or kei^pe certaine dogs not inut-h nnlikeWoU'es, whieh they yoke 
togither, as we do oxen & horses, to a sled or traiU*: and so carry their 
necessaries over tlie yce and snow from place to place: as the captive, 
whom we ha\e, made perfect signes. And wlicn those dogs are 
not apt for the same use: or when witli hunger they are constcained 
for laeke of other vietuaU, thev eate them: so that thev are as need- 
ful! for them in respect of their bignesse, as our uxcii are for us." 
At Leicester's Island, in tlie present Frohisher Bay, a captive Eskimo 
caught one of the Knghs!nnen*s dogs and sliowed how the natives 
trained their animals* In tlie narrator's words^ " Taking in his hand one 
of those eountrey hridles, he caught one of our dogges and hampred 
him liandsomely therein, as we doe our horses, and \\ ith a wliii> in liis 
liand, he taught the dogge to drawe in a sknl as we doe horses in a 
coach, setting himselfe thereupon like a guide: so that we might see^ 
they use dogges for that jmrpose that we do our liorses, , . -They drawe 
with dogges in sleads upon tlie yce, an<! remoove their tents there- 
witludl wherein thev dwell in Soinmer/^ This seems to be the earUest 
account of Eskimo Dogs in Arctic .Ajuerica by Englishmen. It is 
interesting to find that the explorers carried a (h)g with them from 
Europe, showing the ])ossn)ihty at an early date, of contamination 
of the breed with European dogs. John Davis, who sailed from 
England in June, 1585, *'for the disco verie of the Northwest passage," 
met with Eskimo Dogs in August, in (./undjcrland Sound. His 
chronicler relates that h( re "we heard dogs houle on the shoare, 
W'hich we thought had i>ene \'oh'es, and therefore went on shoare to 
kill tlii^m. When wc came on land the dogges came presently to our 
boat very gently, yet we thnni^ht they came to pray upon us, and 
thereffire we sliot at them, and killed two: an<l al)0Ut the necke of 
one of them we found a leatherne coller, whereupon we thought them 
to he tame dogs. There were twenty dogs like mastic es with prickt 
eares and long bush tailes'* (Hakluyt\s Voyages, Everyman's Library 
ed.. 5, p. 2S9). 

At tlie present day. it is unusual to see typical Eskimo Dugs south 
of Hamilton Tnlet on the Lal>rador east coast, though many mongrel 
individuals are found aV>out the settlements between there and New- 
foundlan(i. Three centuries ago, however, the natives of the latter 



ai.i,kn; noes HP tiii- \Mi;tui w ahuri(;inks. 440 

islaiKl lisid iU^s ■vvlik-li frojji tlifir appaiviiL ivseini)ianc-o to woKcs, 
may haw Imhui of the Eskimo breed. For Whitl)ournu, in his "Dis- 
course and T)iseovery of Xeivfoinidhinrr' (London. 1022) writes ihat 
t\iv nativt's of Xt'wfomKlland " aiv a peopk" that will seeke to revm^r 
any w rone's doiu- unto them or tlK-ir Woolves, as liath often appeared. 
For thr> imirk their Woolves in the eares with several raarkes, as is 
used lierc in l-:ii^r]a,id on Sheepe and other beasts, whicli liatli' been 
likewise wtH approveil. For the Woohes in these parts are not 50 
violent nm\ dt>vouring as Woohes are in other Countries." The same 
writer speaks witli astonishment of his own mastiff's faniiHarity with 
these ta.nwl "WoolNes" ^Mercer, 1^97), whicli it .'jeems reasonable to 
cbnelude were really Eskinio Dogs. 

Of the Ivskimo I)ofr in Greenland. Brown (1S68, 1875) considers the 
breed to be practically the same as that of Da^ns Straits and Kamt- 
schatka. In western or Danish Greenland he found it more or less 
mixed with dogs of European descent and south of Holsteensborg not 
used b^• the Eskimo, as the sea is not sufficiently frozen over in winter 
for sle<Jging-. The same author adds that in 1861, Prof. Otto Torell 
brought several dogs from Greenland for the use of his expedition in 
Spitzbergen, where on account of the open water tliev were found 
useless and set free. Within a few years they were said to have 
increaseil in numbers. 

Plaixs-Indiax Dog. 

Characters.— Size medium, sliglitly smaller than the Eskimo Dog- 
ears large, erect; tail drooping or slightly upcurved; coat rather 
rough, usually "ochreous tawny" or "whitish tawny," or sometimes 
black and gray, mixed with wliite. 

DisfribuHon.— Westem North America from British Columbia 
south perhaps to the Mexican Boundary and eastward through the 
Great Plains Region. 

Notes and Descriptions.— It is apparently to this dog tliat most of 
Lord's description (1S66, 2, p. 222) applies in his Naturalist in Van- 
couver Island and British Columbia. So impressed was he bx t)ie 
general similarity of these dogs to coyotes, that he beheved the one 
derived trom the other, and makes one general description do for 
both, with the addition that in the dog the hair '* becomes shorter, 
softer, and more unifonu in coloration, altJiough the tail retains its 
bushy appearance." The general color is an "ochreous grev," the 
hairs tipped with black, those of the neck tricolored, lining thei; 



450 HILLKTIX: Mt'SKl'M OF ( t>MlvVHATt\ t: Ziu'HAMA', 

**l(nvtT two-tliirds reihlish bnnvn; then a ring nf \vliift\ and a I>hick 
tip/' This pattern gives *'a most curious speckltM^l look'' to the 
hristh'ng neck of an enragetl tk>g. Cones (1S73) was efjually inipressecl 
by the general resemblance of these dogs of the Plains ludiaiir^ to 
cov'otcs and considered the two animriU essentially the same in struc- 
tural points, though he tliougJit it " unnecessary to compare the iskulls/* 
Indeed, hv accepted it as unquestionable that in everv^ Indian coni- 
jHunity niongrc*! dogs are found, shading into coyotes in everj^ degree. 
Such crosses he says, are o})tained hy picketing female dogs over night 
at proper times, thus allowing them to cross with coyotes, Morton 
(1S51) quoting a letter from Dr, Cooper, Fort Duncan, Texas, speaks 
of every ranch haAing a dog reseinbling a coyote, "and a bitch to 
which no dog had had access, produced whelps, evidently a cross with 
the Coyote.'^ Wortman, also (in Cope and \Vortman, 1884, p. 8, foot- 
note) after extended travel in the western United States corroborates 
Coues -^ but from hearsay evidence, however. He found among the 
Umatillas, Bannocks, Shoshones, Crows, Arrapahoes, and Sioux, 
mongrel dogs, 'Svliich to one familiar with the color, physiognom\' 
and habits of the coyote, ha\ e every appearance of blood n^lationship," 
if thev are not ** in manv cases, this animal itself in a state of semi- 
domestication/' .Vll such evidence, liuwever, is unsatisfactory, and 
rests on general resenililances in fonn^ color, and ehanieteristies that 
may be common to both animals. A comparison of skulls and teeth 
would perhaps reveal more significant tokens of the true relationship, 
but hitherto nothing lias been published as to the cranial charactej:*s 
of such animals. Yet, in his much-ciuoted paper on the origin of the 
American varieties of the dog, Packard (1885) appears to have been 
influenced by Coues's belief, and agrees with him in considering these 
dogs as merely tamed coyotes. In a journey through provincial 
Mexico he was struck b^' the general resemblance of the native dogs 
to these animals, and again, in 1877, on the upper Missouri took 
special note of the dogs of the Crow^ Indians, describing them as of 
ipvolfdike appearance, of the size and color of a co3^ote — a whitish 
taw^ny — but less hairy and with less bushy tails. Lord (1866, 2^ 
p. 221) found a number of dogs with a little tribe of Indians at Sweltxa, 
a small lake west of the Cascades, near which the boundary of British 
Columbia passes, '^ that were hardly in any degree altered from the 
cayote" in exterior appearance- He speaks of their burrowing 
deeply into the ground to bring forth their young, but this trait is 
found in dogs as \n xll as in coyotes. From these accounts it is clear 
that the general appearance and coloration of this dog are strikingly 



AI-LKN: IXKiS CU' fllK AMKHK A\ AB()HT(ilNE8, 4ri 1 

liki- tliose oi line of the coyotes, Haj?riltoii Sinitli {1840, p. lotij 
refers to the .same dug us the ** Trvhichi of Mrxieo, av the ( arrjer-dog 
of the Jndians/' and i^ives a fijrure (Pi. 4) of the only exaiiij)!** hc^ had 
seen, a tawny dog of normal proportions awd with eropperl (*ars. He 
confuses it liuwe\er, with liiehardstjn's ** Carrier-Indian" or Short- 
hogged Dog and fnrtlier complicates his account hy supposing it the 
same as the !\Texiran Teehichi, 

Ja}nes Teit (19U9) writing ut' the Thorn ptiOM Indians tjf the upper 
Frastr River, British Cohiiuhia, also renuirks on the gmieiai resem- 
hlance of th<*ir dogs to coyotes, hut luliXi:^ that thrnugli intercrossing 
with dogs imported by the whites, the lireed has become totally 
extinct. They were good Jumters, thougli poor watcliHlogs, and the 
best ont^s for deer hunting were highly i)rized. Such dogs generally 
ran the deer to water, often bringing it to bay in some creek, and keep- 
ing it there till tlie Indian came up and dispatched it. 

It is regrettable that more thorough comparison of the teeth of these 
dogs could not be made to test an\^ supposed resemblance or relation- 
ship to coyotes. As Gidley (1013) has pointed out, the fourth lower 
premoL^T of the latter has nonnall^' two secondary cusps and a cingu- 
hmi, that of the dog nomially but one secondary cusp^ a ready means 
of distinction in addition to other relative characters. It shoidd be 
added that in numerous fragments I have examined from the south- 
west, there is no evidence of covote influence. 

Referable to this same breed are perhaps the larger dogs mentioned 
by Suckle^' (Suckley and Gibbs, 1860, p. 112) as kept by the Indians 
'' about the Dalles of the Columbia/' Oregon. These he describes as 
about the size of a foxhound, but much more slender, in color yellow 
or brindled, 

A shnilar type of dog seems to ha\ e been kept by the Indians of 
California. At all events^ a series of skulls from mounds on the south- 
ern coastal islands are hardly to be distinguished from New Mexican 
skulls, A skull found in association with that of an Indian, washed 
out after a freshet, from a bank at the junction of the Tuolumne and 
San Joaquin Rivers, California, is of the same medium-sized type, 
rather heavy of bone^ slender of mu:&zle, and with feeble sagittal crest, 
mainly on the occiput. 

Skeletal Measiiremefm. — A cranimn discovered in the course of 
excavations by Dr. A. V. Kidder at Pecos, New Mexico, may be 
attributed to this dog. It is nearly identical in size and proportions 
with several of the skulls from southern California from mounds on 
the island of San Nicolas, kindly loaned me by the Archaeological 




ii 



452 HllXETlN: MUSKTM oF ( OMPAUA TIA K ZunLotiV. 

l>t'partim*rit of tlir rni\rrsity of CalifiMiHa, Tlu*8e last aiv in an 
exrtlKiit Stat I' of prrst^rxation, of TiuMliuni sizt% yet of niassi\'e b(TiH\ 
with rovi^lienetl !>raiii-ease, am! sagittal erest dtneloped inaitily oii 
the interparietal region. The teetli are rather sniall, the first iippta* 
preinohir laekiiig in soim* eases. 

The following table gives the cranial measurements of several of 
these skulls. The first two* from Pecos, N\ Mex., differ in that tJie 
one, a rostnnn only, is eunsiderubly larger than the other^ or any of 
th** Californiaii skulls. Of the latter, there are several from mounds 
on San Xieohis Island, which represent a dog apparently identical 
with that of New ^lexico. Tin* last two c*)lujnns give dimensions of 
two old dogs with juuchworn teeth; in the larger, Indeed, the upper 
molars ha\'el)een lost and their alveoli partially filled, while the remain* 
ing teeth are mere stumps. The smaller of these two skulls, while 
not very <lifferent in the measurements of the tooth-row, has a shorter, 
smaller craniiun. It is very likely a niungrel la^tween this larger dog 
and rtne of the short-nose<l dogs (^Pachycyon'), a relationship fin-ther 
indicated by its slightly more upturned snout. It is further peculiar in 
lacking the fiist upper premolars on both sides, while in the lower jaw 
there are on l>oth sides four molars, the second and third each with 
two roots and the fourth single-rooted like the usual third molar. 
Four molars in the lower jaw is not an unknown feature in the dog. 
Nehring (1SS2) found twenty dog skulls out of 650 in wliicli there was 
an extra molar either in both upper or both lower tooth-rows, or in 
onlv one tooth-ro\^. 

Lucas (1897) lias gi\ en a brief accoimt of the cranium of a large 
dog, evidently domesticated, fouiid in an ancient Pueblo Indian grave 
at Chaves Pass, Arizona, in 1896, Another of similar proportions 
w as discovered at San Marcos, Texas, aRsoeiated with fiints, a human 
skeleton, and other bones. The former skull he regards as of a ** broad- 
faced type/' and describes it as "precisely similar in size and pro- 
portions to the cranium of an Eskimo dog from Cuml)erland Sound/' 
He supposes these to be carrier-dogs, and recalls Chi\'igero's mention 
of them as *'a quadruped of the country of Cibola [New Mexico], 
similar in ftirm to a mastiffj which the Indians employ to aarry bur- 
dens/^ I have not be(»n able to examine these skulls, but thev ma^^ be 
the same as the larger of the tw^o New Mexico skulls here listed. 



ALLKX: UtiUS OF TIIK AMKUlCAX AUURUirXES. 



4:0 f> 











2 


ft 


* 

2 


■^ 


McMlKiiri'nitMils of ||i*> Skulls 


■ * 

. * 


If. 


- 

■ ■ .^ 

' ■ — '. 


a 

a; - 






a 

Is 

i 

O 3 


Occipitoiiixsal length (exclutl- 














iiig incisors) 




173 


1 70 


104 


172 


178 


159 


Basal length 




153 


151 


140 


153 


150 


143 


Palatal length 


91 


S2 


8o 


81 


81 


88 


81 


Aledian length of nasals 




49 


54 




49 


54 


50 


AlveulLLs of P to anterior edgi" 
















of orbit 


82 


74 


73 


07 


72 


72 


68 


Alveolus of 1^ to m- 


95 


86.5 


89 


80 


88 


91 . 5 


85 


^ " canine to mr 


77 


71 


i '-^ 


69 


72 


75 


70 


" " p' to m^ 


05 


59.5 


j 60 


57 


58 


59 




** '' }^ to m- 


0/ 


53 


5(> 


50 


52 


55 


51 


'' p^ to fU' 


4fi 


42 


45 


40 


42 




41 


« ^* p* to m'- 


34 


3:i 


34 


30 


32 


32 


31 


Alveoli of }}}^ and m^ 


18 


17 


18 


16.5 


19 


17 


16.5 


Length of caniassial (/j^) 


19 


18 


20 


19 


17.5 




17 


Width of occipital condyles 




33 


34 


31 


33 


36 


33 


" palate at m^ 


W 


00 


59 


01 


66 


67 


57 


'* across supraorbital 
















processes 




47 


43 


55 


53 


54 


46 


Zygomatic width 






97 


106 


112 


111 


97 


Lower jaw, alveolus of ii to nh 










89 


92 


87 


**canme 
















to m^ 




' 






80 


85 


79 


Lower jaw, alveolu>: of p^ to nh 


■ . 








G5 


67 


64 


"p,tow, 










62 


63 


61 


''p,tom, 








- - 


53 


55 


52 


" "mitom^ 










34 ' 


34 


33 


Length of trii (carnassial) 











21 


20 


21 



Uses. — These dogs of luedium size, Avere chiefly used hy tliu Indians 
in transportation, secondarily in hunting. In the plains country 
from Saskatchewan to the ISIexican Boundarj^ the travois was in 
general use* This consisted of two light poles, the smaller ends 
fastened together and resting on the dog's shonldersj the heavier ends 




4n4 miXKTix: MrsEi:^! ni niMi'AKAiivE zoulouy. 

k(*pt Mpart hy a c*n>ssi)ifHt* and trnilinj; l>e1irnd. A IcMther collar served 
to keep tins fraine in place t\)r dragj;ing the goods piieU npua it. In 
tliiH way entire villages moved, tlir dogs ilragging tlir huusehuld 
eff*Tts. The eoiitri\anee seems not to ha\ i- been used west of ihv 
Korky Mmintains. Perhaps the earhest mention of the use of these 
dogs as paek-anbuals is Juund in (orunado's account of his journey 
in 1540 Xa 1542, from the Citv of Alexico to the Texas plains (see 
translation liy Winship, G. P., 1904). Whin some ten days' marclt 
from I lie present Rio Fecos, Texas, Coronado arnl his followers came to 
Haxa, wlure the natives were found to ha\e ** packs of dogs/' In 
moving camp, tliese Indians starteil off "with a lot of dogs which 
dragged their possessions/* *'They travel like* the Arabs, with their 
tents and troops of dogs loaded with poles and having Alourish pack 
saddles with girths. When the hnul gets disarranged, the dogs howl, 
calling some one to ^ them right/' A letter from one of ( 'oronado's 
men further describes the dogs. "These people/' he writes, ''have 
dogs like those in this country [Spain], except that they are somew^hat 
larger, anr! they load these dogs like beasts of burden, and make saddles 
for til em like our pack saddles, and they fasten them with their leather 
thongs, and these make their hacks sore on the withers like pack 
animals . . „ . When the;^' move — for these Indians are not settled in 
one place, since they travel wherever the cow^s [L e.^ Bison] move, to 
support themselves, these dogs carry their houses^ and they have 
the sticks of their houses dragging along tied on to the pack saddles, 
besides the load which they carry on top, and the load may be, accord- 
ing to the dog, from 35 to 50 pounds/' Evidently these were the 
earrier-dogs of the Plains Indians, and the method of packing wath the 
tent poles used as travois seems to be here first described. 

As pack-animals, for moving camp in their pursuit of the Bison^ 
these dogs w ere of great service to the Indians of the plains country, 
and every village w^as provided with troops of them- 

As an article of food^ the dog seems to have been somewhat analo- 
gous to the fatted calf, George Catlin (1841, 1, p. 14) writing of the 
Upper Ali^-nuri Indians, says: "We are invited by the savages to 
feasts of dog's meat, as the most honourable food that can be presented 
to a stranger/* 



AI.LKN: IHKiS of TMK \MKHI( an AHnltirnNKS, 455 



Siorx Doc. 

Ch(inicfei\s. — A lurgi' wolf-like tlog, pmltulily cIosel^\ rcluU'd lu the 
riains-Tndiaii Do*; Imt larL^i^r and j^ray ratlier than tawny in color. 

D}*stril}ufion. — IVohably tlu^ fiortl^-erntral plains iirvn, from the* 
Missouri iiortti perhaps to Saskatrht wan. 

Kotf\^. — No donht xhv carrier-dogs ditiVrid sligjitly among the 
varions tribes of FUiins Indians co\ering the wirk* .stretch of conntry 
from Northern Mexico to Saskatchewan, so that local breeds oi ihe 
general L\'pe could be diistiiiguished (hd we have upporiuiiity to com- 
pare tht^ni. Morton (1851), who tried to obtain infonnation from 
frontier officers in the earlier half of thv last centnry, quotes a letter 
from H. H. Sibley, a correspondent in Minnesota, who avers that 
" the Indian Dog difTers much in size and appearance among different 
tribes'' but that they all have small, sharp, erect ears. He pariicu- 
larly recalls that "among the Sioux, it is large and gray, resembling 
the BulTalo Wolf/' Packard (1885) has mentioned *' whitish tawny*' 
Indian dogs seen in 1877^ among the CroAvs of the upper ^lissouri. 
Lewis and Clark, on their famous journey, came upon a scaffold 
burial of an Indian squaw, near which lay two dog-sleds and tlie 
carcase of a large dead dog, lietwecn IVIandan an<l the YelloAvstone. 
These large gray dogs of the Sioux may have been a distinct breed 
from the tawny dog, of the size of a Coyote, and possibly the same as 
certain hirge dogs seen by Hind (bSo9) among the Crees of tlie Sand 
Hills. Sir John Franklin (in his Journey to the shores of the Polar 
Sea, 1S29, 1, p. 176) briefly mentions the large dogs of the Crees in the 
Saskatchewan country. He adds that in the month of [March, the 
female wolves "frequently entice the domestic dog from the forts» 
although at other seasons a strong antipathy seemed to subsist between 
them/* 

Hamilton Smith (1840) quotes an interesting letter from Prince 
Maximilian of \Yied, likening the North American plains dog to a 
wolf, "excepting that the tail is more curved, and the color either 
** absolutely grey like wolves'' or wliite, black, and black and white 
spotted. The latter coloring, however, may apply to some other 
breeds than that under consideration. 

Figures probably representing this dog, are showTi in some of the 
plates of Catlings Indians (1841, colored edition, 2) small to be sure, 
but showing the gray coloring, large erect ears, and scimitar-shaped 
tail carried out behind. His Plate 103 in 2 is a spirited drawing 
illustrating a dog-fight in which all the dogs of the party, thougli 
burdened with their loads *^ en iravois/' are rushing to participate. 




450 HILLKTIX: MlSFJ^r av V0MV\U\TI\K ZtWujKJY. 



(\hiimiirrs. — A intHliuiu-siziHl dog of slriider niuMle, erect ears, 
nml noniKil Imshy tail. Hair long ami dense, pale \elltmisli, clouded 
with dark !vro\vn on ears and crown, whitish Ijencath on throat, l)elly, 
and feet. Feet well-haired, Prohaljly this is to he looked upon as a 
local l*reed of the Plains-Indian Hog, from wliicli it apparently differs 
onlv in its loiu^^er coat. 

Disirihiilion. — KnoAvn oidy from the Marsh Pass region of Arizona, 
but ill former times proliahly cnninion to the Pueblo tribes of Arizona 
and Xew Mexico, 

Gnural Arantni. — One of the remarkabk^ discoveries of Messrs. 
Guernsey and Kidder, while exploring for the Peabody Museum, 
was an excellently preserved specimen of a incdium-sized dug associ- 
ated with a human buriaL In the arid clinuite of Arizona, the 
dog had merely dried* so that the entire animal even to the thick hair 
was ncarh' intact. It is covered with a dense coat of long woolh^ 
liair, of a pale ycUowisli color, clouded on the back and head ^silli 
brownish. On tlic sides of the liodv, the len^'th of the hair is about 
ion mm.; on the toes 30 jhui. Tlie culture period to w^hich this 
specimen belongs, is believed by Mr. (niernsey to antedate that of the 
<1ifT Dwellers* and hence iiiiist be at least several centuries old. 

It seems prol>alile that it was to this long-haired dog that Mendoza, 
a companion of Coronado, refers in a letter of 17 April, 1540, to the 
King of Spain, describing the pueblo of ('ibola, then a famous Indian 
site, near the present town of Ziini, Xt^w Mexico, This letter is trans- 
lated by \Vinshi{) (1904, p. la^i) from th*? Spanish of Pacheco y Car- 
denas, (I)ocumentos de Indias, 2, p. 3o(j)^ and contains the following 
passage: — *'Im their houses they keep some hairy animals, like the 
large Spanish hounds, M'hich they shear, and they make long colored 
wigs from the hair, like this one which I send to Your Lordship, which 
they wear, and they also put tliis same stulf into the cloth which they 
make/' These ^' hairy aiiitnals, like the large Spanish liounds/' 
seem probabl^ , in the liglit of Mr. Guernsey's discovery, to have been 
the same as the dog found at ATarsh Pass, It is recalled here that 
breeds of long-liaired dogs were kept for shearing not only by the 
Indians of Puget Sounds but by the Thonos of the Taitao Archipelago,. 
Chile, and thrir hair woven into blankets (see p. 475). There was 
formerly a breed of long-haired white or brown dogs among the 
aboriginal inhabitants of Xew Zeahyid, the product of ^\hich was 
similarly used 'Tolenso, 187S). 



AiXKx: nous of thi: ameuk an AHuuunxKs. 457 

Extemal Mrit.\^ftrrtnrfth\ — It is not possible to vvmovi^ tlif skull iind 
limb-hones without iiijunu^^ tlit^ irunmiiy for exliihition |)urposes. 
A few (liinensions, iiowever, follow;- — 

Length frnin nuse to ruot nf taih rullrmviiig l)ackbtjiie — about 70(1 luni. 

I^ength i)f tail, (broken at tip) slightly over 2(M) 

JliuJ font Ill 

Feiniir (:ipproximatt%) 14r, 

Tihia (appn)xiinately) , , |4;j 

L-pjifr jaw, front of canine tn hack tif pm* o5 .5 

UpptT oarmjssial (jim*) Ig 

Lentjtli of skuH fmra occiput to tip of nose (approximritclv) . . 195 

Wiiitli ontsitk upijer canines 31 

" * carnassials 54 

Zj-gunuitic width — about 95 

Ix)wer jaw. front of canine to liack of lUi (iS .5 

" " " " '■ « "7>4 49 

/wh to puii 35 

Lenjitli of lowpr <'arnassial ''1 



LAKt;i:R OK Common Ixdiax Dog. 

Plates 7, 8. 

1817. CanUfamiliaris ami^ricanm canaden^iM Walther, Huiid, p. 43, 

1829. Corns famiUari.^ var. c. canndensif^ Rieharclson, Fauna Boreali-Amer., 1. 

p. SO (not CartLs lupus canadensh lihiinville 1841, wliieh is Cam> lycaon 

iSchreber) . 

1834-6. Canis cahadensis Reiehenbacli, llegn. anim., pt. 1, p. 46, fig. 564, 

Cafii^ familiaris orfhoim caNmJensis Reiehenbiu^h. Xaturg. raubth., 

p, 14B, fig. 5(34. 

1867- Cauis dome^Hcu^ borealU- lupariiL'^ Fitzlnger, Sitzb. K. akach wi^sa. Wien, 
66, pt. 1, p. 409 (not C. f. orthotux luparlm Reichenbach. Regno anim,, 
pt. 1. i>. 13, fig. 131; out Cants domesticti^ luparias Fit^inger, 8itzb. 
K, akath wiss. Wien, 186fi, 54. pt. 1, p. 405; 1867, 56, t^t. 1, p, 396. 

1881, CanU latnms domesticii^ Larigdon, Jo urn. Cine. soe. nat. hist., 3, 
p. 299 fnot Cayii^ familiari^ dnmejitieus Liniie, 1766), 

C^arf/rfrr^,— This was prohabl\- dosely refete<l to tlie Plains-Indian 
Dog, but seems to have been usually solid black <yr black and white 
in patches instead of resembling the Coyote in color. The sknll has, 
T-vhen adult, a knife-like sagittal crest, a high forehead, and is rather 
slender. Linib.^^ much longer tlian in the Short-IeirRcd Indian Dog 




45S lU'l.LKTlX: MISKIM OF ("OMPAUATIVK ZOnLOGY. 

yrt sliglitl\ inferior to those of u (in yhouiul The first h)wer pre- 
molar was frecitiently wantuig, 

Dhfribufion. — Dogs of this general type, agrt^eing fairly well in size 
and proportions were found among the forest Indians from Ahiska 
southward to Floriila and the Greater Antilles, and westward to the 
edge of the phiins in tlie east central States. The more northern dogs 
seem to average a litth^ larger than those from the south, hut in the 
absence of more exact knowleilge set in best referred to this type. No 
doubt in the far Northweist there was more or less mixture with the 
Eskimo Dog, Probahly too, local strains of this general type of dog 
could l)e distinguished, di<l we know their external characteristics, 
but tlie skulls and teeth seem remarkably similar over a wide area, 

Skcleta! rfmaim. — Cope (1S93) was the first to describe the jaw of 
this dog from a specimen collected by Moore from a shell-momid on 
St John's River, Florida. He was struck by the fact that the first 
lower premolar was missing and appeared not to have developed. 
The strong development of the entoconld of tlie carnassial, he also 
noticed. Moore, in the course of various explorations in Florida and 
Georgia discovered many remains of dogs, apparently of this type. 
In a large mound on Ossabaw Island, Georgia, he (1897) found several 
interments of human and ring-skeletons, the latter always buried sepa- 
rately and entire, showing that the dogs had not been used as food. 
Other dog-skeletons of a similar sort were foinid by ^loore (1899) in 
aboriginal mounds on the South Carolina coast. Several of the 
skulls collected by him are in the Peabod^ Museum, where I have 
had the pri\ilege of studying them. Putnam (1896) considered them 
the same as those of the larger Madisonville dogs. More recently 
the M. C\ Z. has received from Prof. Carlos de la Torre, two frag- 
mentary skulls of dogs associated with pre-Columbian burials in Cuba. 
These skulls seem to be essentially similar as far as can be judged- 
Miller (1916) has reported a lower jaw of a dog from an Indian site 
in Cuba. 

Three crania in excellent condition, from tlie Madisonville, Ohio, 
site agree in their somewhat slender proportions, with narrow palate 
and rostrum. A strong but thin bony crest is developed along the 
midline of the brain-case, and there is a noticealjle inflation of the 
region just back of the supraorbital processes. The first premolar 
is absent in both cranium and jaw of one specimen. Two crania from 
a shell-heap at La Aloine, Maine, similarly lack the first premolar. 
One of tliese latter is a much larger skull than any of those froni 
Madison\'ilIe, whic^h nia\^ indicate some variation in the local breeds. 



AIXKN: DOtiS OF TIIK AMKHFtAN ABOHICINKS. 



459 



yet the general type seems to be the same. Hardly distinguishable 
from the ^Maine specimens in any way is a skull from Peel River, 
Yukon, (U. S. N. M. 6,219) collected about 1860 by Konnicott and 
representing probably the common Indian Dog of that region. 



Cm n ial N ! easii rRmeats 



^ ¥ ■ ¥ * 



-■ « « fi 



.\lveolus of z* to occipital condyle, . 
Median length of nasals. . . 
Alveolus of iMo median edge of 

Alveolus of i^ to anterior edge of 

.Alveolus of i^ to m- 

^ " canine to m-. . . . 

'' "pi to m:^ 

« 'V' to?/i^ _,... 

.\lveoli ?n^ and m- 

Length of p^ ,.,...,.,... * 
Width of occipital condyles 

*' palate at ??i^ 

across supraorbi t al 

processes 

Zygomatic width ........ 






t 



c 

•i 

.2? 



170 
56 

85 

74 

86 

72.5 

60 

52 

18.2 

19 

31 

59 

50 

102 



C 

> 

T OC 

a • 

5 »- 



172 
62 

90 

77.5 

90 

75 

62.5 

56 

18 
37.5 

57 

51 
98 



C 






163 

57 

87 

74 
87 
72 

55 

20.8 
18.6 
34 

61 

47 
104 



.—I 

= 'I 

c ■ 

3 . 

> 3 



177 



88 

81 
96 
79 



62.5 
19 

20.5 

40 

66.5 

49 

101 



>l 






Ld 


* 




1^ 


' ^K 






N4 


-+ 


E * 


* f* 


-"« 


- X 


5 cc 


O 


>« 


<s 




2 -y: 


« c^ 


BI 




M "^ 


N 


■ 


-^ 


IS - ' 


SS *^ 




^ w 




5 ■ 


c% 


163 


169 




57 


57 




86 


90 




74 


•77 




86 


90 





71 


74 


74 


59 


60 


64 


52 


52 


55 


17 


17 


16.3 


17.5 


18.5 




36 


34 


38 


54 1 


60 


62 


46 


57 




92 


104 








*i < 



19S 



93 



86 



20.8 

40 

68 

60 



168 



70 =t 

83 
70 

56 
19.8 
19.7 
37 
55 



Of seven lower jaws from Maine shell-heaps, all but one lack the 
first premolar, and the same tooth is lacking in a ramus from Madison- 
viile. It seems to be missing in the greater portion of lower jaws of 
this dog. The following measurements show the lengths of different 
parts of tlie tooth-row taken at the alveolar borders, because the 
teeth themselves are frequently lost. 



460 



BULLKTIN: MISKIM liF KJMVAIIATIVK ZOOLOGY. 



rifctitli-ryw Mi'Hsurpment-^ 


X 

^ - 

^ Jr. 


■ * 

^ J! 


* 


■ 

.E w 






> 

IT 
■ ■ I ^ 


Alveoli^ ti to niz 


99 




lUU 




97 


105 


87 


" C to tfh 


04 




Oi 




02 


no 




** Ps to Wis 


72.5 


74 


74 


75 


71.5 


77 


05 


" P3 to mz 


tn 


{i:i 


(i2 


G4 


(12 


or, 


' 


" /)4 to nh 


49 


49 


50 


49 


n(t 


50 




*' ffti to Wa 


:n 


36 


:}8 


37 


39 


38 


33 . 5 


Length of tooth, mi 


22 . 5 


22.3 


23 


21.5 


24 


23 


21 



Skeletal Mcfi.Hurcinents^ — Tht* first of the Calf Island jaws a1)0ve, is 
accompanied by parts of the skeleton of the same animaL The limb- 
bones of this skeleton and tliose of several dogs from Madisonville, 
Ohio, measure: 



j 




5 ^ 


c 2 








■^l' 


1^ 




Humerus 

Radius 

Femur 
"I'ibia 


168 
KM 
170=t= 
172 


163 


162 


lf>4 ' 


163 


173 


177 


lOU 


150 



Xotes and J)rMTjpfkmrS\~ On account of the finding of cranial 
fragments that appear to represent this animal, in aboriginal burials 
in Cuba, it is assumed that this is the dog mentioned by the first 
discoverers imder rolnmbus. 0\'iedo (1535) writing of the aboriginal 
dogs in Haiti shortlv after the discovery, declared that thev were no 
longer to be found there in 1535^ as all had been killed for food during 
a time of famine. These dogs lie descrilied as of all the colors found 
among the dogs of Spain, some uniformly colored, others marked with 
blackish and white, or reddish brown. The coat of some waswooll\', 
of others silky or satiny, Init most of tliose in Haiti were between silky 
and satiny, yet rougher than tlie Spanish flogs; with ears pointed and 



ALLI:N: IMUiH iW THK AMER1C'A.\^ AIM lUlt;iNKS. 41) I 

iTiTt liki* tliosr nf \V(i!\'es. None of these dogs l>ark(Hl. Oviedo 
adds that ^iniihtr doj^s were plenlifnl in many parts of the continent, 
as in Mexico, Santa Mart a, and Nicaragua. II(^ liad eaten their 
Hesh and considered it excellent, reseiidjling lamb. In Nicaragua 
and Mexico the Indians bred ninnbers of them and at tlitnr great 
festivals dog-meat was considered the best dish of all The natives 
of Haiti hunted some species of Hutia with these dogs. 

\'ery little seems to have been written descriptive of this l>reed. 
In his essay on the origin of dogs, Hunter (1787) mentions that a Mr. 
Cameron J who had lived among the Cherokee Indians, informed him 
that the dog found in their country was '* very similar to the wolf," 
Cameron thouglit it remarkable there were not sundry breeds of dogs 
among these Indians, as in Europe. William Bartram (1792, p. 220), 
during liis travels in Florida, made special note of a '^ single black dog, 
which seemed to diFer in no respect from the wolf of Florida, except 
his being able to bark as the common dog." It belonged to an Indian, 
who liad trained it to tend a troop of semi wild horses, ^* keeping them 
in a separate company where they range; and when he is hungry or 
wants to see his master, in the evening he retnrns to town, but never 
stays at home at night/' Barton (1805) appears to liave made more 
particular inquiry of Bartram concerning these Indian Dogs of 
Florida^ and describes them as '^ very similar to the Canis Lycaon, or 
l>Iack wolf,'' yet they are not ahvays lilack ''but of different colours, 
commonly of a bay colour, and about one tliird less than the wild 
black wolf. It carries its ears almost erect, and has the same wild 
and sly look that the wolf has/' Barton adds that the dogs of the 
Cherokees were already (1805) much intermixed with the European 
dogs, * 

Peter Kalm informed John Bartram that the dogs of the Canadian 
Indians (?Montreal) were like those in Sweden with erect ears, and 
Bartram himself (in a letter to George Edwards, 1757) recalled as a 
boy seeing the Indian Dogs, with erect ears, accompanying their 
masters on occasional visits to his father's house in Pennsylvania. 
Barton (1805), who seems to have made diligent inquiry about these 
dogs, further describes their aspect as ^' much more that of the wolf 
than of the common domesticated dogs. His body, in general, is 
more slender than that of our dogs. He is remarkably small behind. 
His ears do not hang like those of our dogs, but stand erect, and are 
large and sharp-pointed. He has a long, small snout, and very sharp 
nose/' Tliis breed, he says, was still preserved in the greatest purity 
among the Six Nations, from whom the Delawares acknowledge that 
they received it. 




4(i2 BrLLKTix: Mi>;Erji of (Omfahativk zoi>u>f;v. 

Ju(iginj: froiii the luiinrrtnis shell-lu^ap rtnnains of wliat semis to l>r 
this sanir dop, It was fonuerly coiiuiuni aiiu>iig the New Englaiiil 
Iiuliaiis. In Hakluyt's Vt*yages (Everyinairs Library etl., 6. p, 95) 
is an acronnt of The voyage of the ship ealled the Marigold oi Mr. 
Hill of Hedrife unto Cape Briton and beyond to the latitnde of 44 
degrees and an liaH\ 1593. The narrator tells of meeting with a 
party of "Savages" at Cape Breton in July, who upon the accidental 
iliseharge of a musket, came ** running right up over the bushes with 
great agilitie and swiftnesse. . .with white staves in their handes 
hke halfe pikt^s, and their dogges of colour blacke not so bigge as a 
greyhounde followed tlieni at their heeles; but wee retired unto our 
boate/' 

It is probably to this breed of dog that Charlevoix refers in liis 
Journal of a voyage to North America (Lundon, 2 vols, 17(>1, trausi). 
"The Indians/' he writ* s, ^^ahvaj'S carry a great number of dogs w^ith 
them in their huntings; these arc the onlv domestick animals tlwv 
breed, and that too only for hunting; they appear to be all of one 
species, with upriglit ears, and a long snout like that of a wolf "• 
(1, p. 187), 

This is the "major" type of Indian dog reported by Loom is and 
Young (1912) froju ^Maine shelHieaps, where rather large-sized speci- 
mens have been discovered. Dog-remains have been found also in 
ronneeticut (MacCurdy, 1914) and Block Island, R. I. (Eaton, 1S98). 

An Indian Dog-skull (Plate 7) collected by Kennicott on the Peel 
River, about ISGO (U. S- N, M. 6,219) is hardly different, except for 
its very slightly greater size, and seems best referred to the same sort 
of dog, though possil)ly a distinguishable breed. Richardson (1829) 
named this dog C(inirS\fainiluirw var, cmiadensiSf and says it is the 
kind *'most generally cultivated by the native tribes of Canada and 
the Fur countries/' He describes it as intermediate in size and fonn 
between the Eskimo and the HareJndian Dog. Its fur is l^laek and 
gray, mixed with wliite; some are all black. Apparently i<lentical 
with the skull from Peel River is another collected by Dr. W. H. Dall, 
from a prehistoric Aleut village site in Unalaska. Dr. Dall notes that 
this is the only dog-skull which had been found in the undeniably 
prehistoric kitchen-middens of the Akmtian Islands. It still retuijis 
the upper carnassialj which meavSures 20.5 mm. in length. The 
occipital condyles are 38 mm. across. The first uppei* prensohir was 
apparently lacking. 

Probably it was a dog of this breed that Audubon figured as the 
Hare-Indian Dog, from a living one in the gardens of the Zoological 



ALLKX; UOGS OF THK AMIIHU AX AHUHKMXKS, 4(i;i 

Surit'tv of L(in«lt>n, lit^rnard It. Ross flSCi]) sri'liis lu luive roiii'ust'd 
thr two as wi'll; f()r a skull (u>lI(/cttMl \>y liiiii at Fcirt Simjisoii and 6vu\ 
to tlie W S, N, M, as '^('anis fagojnhs*' is vwn larj^fer than the* onr* 

fruiu I\t1 Ui\tM^ and almost uiuldubti'dlv a cross uiili an Mskinn* 

•i 

Dog, Both skulls lack the first lower preinr^lar. 

In thr Xortli the Conniion Indian Doj; is larjjely used anion}; the 
forest Indians as a beast of burden, 

Saiiiuel Hearne, on liis famous journey lo Peel Tlixer, 1769-72, 
observed that tlit^ Tnrlians' *' kettles, and some othei' huulier, are 
always earried l>y dogs, which are trained to that service, and are 
very docile antl tractable. * * * Tliese dogs are equally w illing to haul 
in a sledge, but as few of the men will be at the troulde of making 
sledges for them, the poor womc^n Lire oblige^d to content themselves 
with lessening the bulk of their load, more than the weight, by making 
the dogs carry tliese articles only, wliieli are always hished on their 
backs, nuieh after the same manner as packs are, or used formerly to 
be, on pack-horses/' 



Kla-math-Indiax Dog. 

Chantdcrs. — A iiiediuju-sized dog, with a short, busli\" tail. 

Disfrihuthiu — So far as known, this peculiar breed was found only 
among the Indians in the Klaniiith Hi^'er region of Oregon. 

Remarks. — The only mention of this dog that I have found is the 
following by Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 1S(30, p, 112): 

'■On the Klamath is a dog of good size, with a short ftilL This is 
not more than six or seven inches long, and is bnshy, or rather hroad, 
it being as w ide as a man's hand. I was assured they were not cut, 
and I never noticed longer tails on the pups. They liave the usual 
erect ears and sharp nmzzle of Indian dogs, l>ut are (what is unusual 
with Indian dogs) often brindled gray,'' 

Presumably the shortened tail arose as an independent variation 
among dogs of the Plains-Indian Dog type and was preserved among 
these dogs through selective breeding. Similar short-tailed l)reeds 
are well known among European dogs, as in tlie Ijiglish Sheep-dog, 
and certain \'arietics of Bull-terriers. ^MacFarlane (1905, p. 696) 
gives an account of a ^ery much prized Eskimo Dog he owned in the 
Mackenzie District, that was born tailless and undersized, l>ut pro\Td 
an excellent sled-dog. 




^^'-l HlLi.KTlX: AHHEUM OF COMFAKATrVF ZOOLOGY. 



SllOHTIJ GtiKD iNDlAiN DoG, 



Plate 5, fill. 1' 



1820. Catilsfaniiliarh var. cL mfvae mledoniav Rieluirdsoa, Fauna Bon^ali- 

Amer., 1 j). 82. 
(?) 1912. (mvis familiarLs, mim^ Indmii dog, Lntynus and \'<nuig, Ainer. 

joiirn. Kei., ser* 4, 34, p. 26. fig. 4, D, - 

Ckaritctrr<s. — Ears erect, head larj^r in proportion, and liody lotig; 
the U'gs relatively short lint not distcjrtedas in our Turnspits. Fur of 
the body short and sleek, tliat t)f tla^ tail longer. This it> poissibly a 
derivative of the Common or Larger Indian Dog. 

Di.'^irifjutiaH.— It is hardly possible to trace the former distribution 
of this type of dog. It was foimd by Richardson in southern British 
Columbia, and a dog apparently similar is known from Quebec, and 
perhaps formerly in New England and New York, Probably it was 
fonnrl among eannc-using or forest-Hving triVjes in the North, hence 
was infreciuent or absent in plains country, 

Notr.s' and Drseripthyus. — Apparently Richardson (1829) was tlie 
first to take special note of this breed. He found it among the Attnah 
or Carrier Indians of "New Calcflonia/' (now British Columlaa) and 
it seems to have been bred as w cU Ijy neighboring tribes as far south at 
least as northern C*alifomia. For Gil>bs (Suckley and Gibbs, 1800^ 
p, 112) makes particular mention of seeing ''one peculiar looking dog 
on Eel River, in the interior of northern California, among very wild 
Indians. It had shorf legs and long body, like a turnspit/' tiuekley 
in the same work, briefly says that '* the Indian dogs about the Dalles 
of the Columbia [Oregon] are so varit^l in appearance that no special 
description can be giren. We might, however, make two types. The 
large * "*" * and the .v?;^^///, resembling the ' turfispU kiad' of which Mr. 
Gil)l>s speaks. Tlic latter are generally white, or spotted liver and 
white, or l)Iack and white. This kind is kept more as a plajTuate for 
the chiklren and a pet for the women/' 

It is significant that Suckley mentions the "varied" appearance of 
the Oregon flogs, so that it was possible to refer them in general to 
hut two types. This may have been a result in part of the inter- 
breetling of the larger and the smaller types^ and in part perhaps of a 
mixture as Suckley suggests with European breeds already intro- 
dncrd. 



ALLKN: IHHJS UF 'MIK AMKHITAM AHOUHaXKS, 4(15 

Although griHi^ally associiittul with tin* Iiidinns of British Cohnnhiu 
inn] ntnglihtiiiiiii part.s of the nortlnvestrrn Tnitrd Stales, it seems 
likely tliat this nr a siniilnr hvvvt] may liave h(^eii nmdi murr widely 
distributed over northern North America, as far east and snutli as 
Quebeet New Englaruh and New York, if not farlhe]\ An excellent 
photo^nuipli iiivi-n nir by Mr. W. B, (^d>nt (Piatt- 5, fig, 1) was ol>- 
taiiied a few' yt^ars since among tht" li{M\siniis Tiahans, Quebec, and 
j>eems to represent a dog of the same genera! t\'pt\ Tlie large liead, 
erect ears (somewhat laid back in the photograph), long, lieavy l>ody, 
short, straight legs, np-turned tail, agree Veil with otla^r descriptions. 
This particular individual has the spiritless air of an old dog. 

That this breed of dog ^Yas found at least as far south as tlie south- 
ern coast of New^ Enghjiid^ may possibly he inferred from tlie account 
by Livermore (1S77, p. 58) of the dogs of tiic Block Island Tnehans, 
of Rhode Island. This isolated colony of Indians numbered some ;i(M) 
individuals up to the year 1700, luit l)v 1774 wa.s veduct-d to onlv 51. 
In 1876, there Avas known to be l>ut a single one liwiug on the ishuuL 
According to the author just mentioned, "the * dogs' of Block Island 
belonging to tlie Manisseans before the Englisli came have their 
descendants here still, it is believed. They are not numerous. Init 
peculiar, differing materially from all the species wdneli we have 
noticed on the mainland, both in figure and disposition. They are 
below a medium-sia^e, with short legs but powerful, broad breasts, 
heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound, 
the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition 
that in some makes but little distinction betw^een friend and foe/' 
The description here gixen, unsatisfactory thougli it be, implies a dog 
much like that shown in fig. 1, Plate 5. 

Skrhia! Rnitains.— I am unaware of the existence in an\' museum, 
of bones that may l>e definitelv associated w^ith the Short-legged 
Indian Dog. Hut, •as pointed out by Looniis and Young 1^912), 
there are in the prehistoric shell-heaps of the Xew England coast 
remains of a larger and a smaller Indian Dog, the latter of wdiich on 
the strength of the evidence just given as to the f onner presence of the 
short-legged breed in eastern Canada and New^ England, may tenta- 
tively be referred to this animah The authors mentioned have char- 
acterized the lower teeth of this smaller dog on the basis of jaws from 
tlie ]Maine shell-heaps and tlirough the kindness of Professor Looniis 
I have had opportunity to study the specimens. 

The mandibles are all more or less broken, but include several in 
fairly good condition. They tHffer from those of the Larger i>r Com- 




40(i 



HrLLKTIX: MrSET'M UK ro\lFARATlVK ZOOLOGY. 



iiion liiiiiaii l^oii in I lie siiiallcr sizi: of the iii(li\ iilual tt^utli as well as 
in the shorier tooth-nnv. Xvt the contrast is not ahvaNS vcrv Htrik- 
in^ and no tlouht then^ \va> more or less iiitererossint; of the two types. 
The leetli of tlie smaller (loj; are usually more close-set tliaii those of 
the larjier, ami on trnnparison, thi* caniassial tooth is seen to l>e ile- 
cidedly smaller, its mi^taeonid soinc^tiines (jiiite obsolete, and witli a 
distinet tendency for the outer of the two cusps of the heel (hypo- 
coniil) lo become eidargcd and trencliant. As in the Common Indian 
Dog, ami in American aljoriginal dogs generally, it is common if not 
usnaK for the first lower premolar to be lacking, and the same is 
fretiuentlx true of the first nppiT premolar. Such an anomaly is 
occasional in all domestic dogs. Indeed, liuurguignat (1875) founded 
his genus Lycorus on such a fossil canid jaw — probably of a wolf — 
from a ca\ eni-deposit in Fninc(\ In his specimen the first premolar 
was lacking in each ramus. 



M>asiirf*nifnls cjf On* litiwi*r 


Me. 
















S! 


»S5 


U'09 


C'l ' 

\ 
\ 


C2 


i8;i 


Greatest kiigth of Icnver 
















(*arnassial 


1 


I'.t.S 


20.3 


21 


20 


20.6 


21.3 


Number of Iriwer pre- 














t 


molars 




3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


4 


Alveolar length p^ to m-z 




65.5 




68 J 


65 


64 


66 ' 


** ** P2 ttJ jh 




33 


31.5 


34 


32.5 


32 


33 


AlvtH>li, upper /j-^-zn- 


39.5 














« /j*-///^ 


29 


' 












« ^,,1- 


16 














Greatest length of /;* 
















(tooth) 

















Looniis arul ^'nimg (1912) mention simihir small Jaws from Indian 
sites in Arkansas, 

Of limb-bones referal>le to the Short-legged Dog it \< pirticnlarly 
desirable to obtain specimens for comparison with the other Ijreeds. 
Among limb-bones in the .Andierst collection from Maine are several 
longer and shtjrter. The latter in the lack of e\ idence to the con- 
trary, may be regarded as having come from the present type. Of 
two humiTi, one* is nearly perfect and appears to be that of an adult 
animal, with its eiiiphyses througlily fused to the shaft. Its ole- 



ALLKN: DUGH of T!IK AMKHKAN AlloHKilXES. 4( 



M 



rraniiil perforation is \argv and oval, soinewliat Irss tluui luilf llie 
breadth of the shaft nt the mmv point. Tlir deltoid ridp' is typically 
proininent. The hone itself i^ slender and nt>t in anv \va\- tlnekrn*^! 
or distorted. It measures: — greatest length, I Ml) nini,; antenn 
posteriMr (hameter of head, 31; trans\'erse diameter of liead, 2.1; 
traiij^verse diameter of distal end, 25,5; widtli of rlistal artienhir 
surface, 17. Tt is tluis about tliree quarters the length of the humerus 
in tin* T.arger or Common Indian Dog, proportionally slender, yet 
considerably longer than tliat of th(^ Terhiehi. What is undoubtedh' 
the radius of the same dog, measures 120 mm. in greatest length; 
14.5 in tliameter at the proximal and 19 aJt tlie distal end, A femur, 
possibly of the same specimen measures: — greatest letigth, 130 mm.; 
greatest transverse width of distal end, 25. It is tlnis slightly hmger 
than the humerus, in the normal proportion. The hmb-bones indi- 
eate a dog about the stature of a terrier or a basset-hound. 

Among many isolated lower jaws from ^Maim -hell-heaps are some 
in w^hieh the eamassial tooth is noticeably narrow and intemiediate 
in size between that of the t^^>ical Short4egged Dog and the Larger 
or Common Indian Dog. These prol)al)ly represent cross-bred 
animals as Loomis and Young have suggested 

I S€S\ — These smaller dogs were apparently the familiar househohl 
pets or hunting companions of the Indians of forested country or of 
the canoe-using tribes- They were too small to be of ser^ ice as pack- 
animals wnth travois or pannirr, and hence seem not to have been 
much in fa\'or with the Plains Indians, whose main subsistence was the 
Bison for the hunting of which, dogs were unnecessary. Suekley 
(1S60) particularly mentions that they were kept more as a '*phiy- 
mate for the children and a pet for the women" among the tribes of 
the Columbia Ri\*er. ^Ioreo\ er, a small dog is a better companion 
in a canoe than a larger clumsy animaL 

Richardson says of the Short-legged Dog, that it was used in the 
chase, was ver\^ active and agile at jumping. It w'as perhaps a dog 
of this t\T>e that was used in hunting the bea^'er. George Bird Grin- 
nell (Forest and stream, 1S97, 49, p. 3S2) writes that the Cheyenne 
Indians, before their intercourse with whites, hunted the Beaver with 
dogs, by breaking the dam and thus exposing the bea\*er houses and 
their underwater entrance. *' The dogs which were small enough to 
enter tlus hole, and yet were pretty good sized animals, went into the 
hole '' and worried the beaver till it followed the dog out, when an 
Indian waiting outside, clubbed the beaver to death. Le Jeune, in 
his Relation de ce qui c'est passe en ht Xouvelle France [Quebec] 




46S BILLETIX: ^^IISEUM OF CO^IFARATI\ E ZOOLOGY. 

en Fimne 1633 (Jesuit relations, 1897, 5, p, 165) mentions this use 
of dogs in Beaver liunting; ** sonietinies when the dogs encounter the 
Ik aver outside its liouse, they pursue and take it easily; T have never 
seen this chase, hut liave heen tohl of it; and the savages highly value 
a dog which scents and runs down this animaL" Le Jeune speaks of 
the familiarity of the Indian dogs, that in winter they are unabk^ to 
sleep outside and come into the cabins, lying and walking over the 
inmates. Elsewhere lie speaks of giving food to a 'petit chien; hut 
adds that *'the sa\ages do not throw to the dogs the bones of female 
Beavers and Porcupines, — at least certain specified bones,,., yet 
thev make a thousand exceptions to this rule, for it does not matter 
if the vertebrae or nnnp of these animals be given to the dogs, but the 
rest must be thrown into the fire/' 

Testimony of early tra^x*llers is somewhat conflicting as to the 
eating of their dogs l>y the Indians, Le Jeune states that "in the 
famine which we endured, our savages would not eat their dogs, 
because tliey said that, if the dog was killed to be eaten, a man would 
be killed h\ blows from an axe." On other occasions, however, such 
scruples were not observed. Tluis Father Rasles, in a letter written 
to his brother in 1716, from Narantsook, forty miles up the Kennebec 
Ri\-er, iMaine, says that at the news of the French and English War, 
the Indian young men were ordered by the older Indians to kill dogs 
for the purpose of making the war-feast (Jesuit relations, 1897, 67, 
p. 203) — possibly liere with a view to sending their dogs on before, 



should death overtake their masters. Feasts of dog-flesh seem to 
have been connnoner among the Indians of the West and South, and 
Fremont in his narrative of his explorations (1845, p. 42) recounts 
1 jeing invited, as a mark of honor, to a dog-feast. " The dog was in a 
large pot over the fire, in the middle of the lodge, and immediately 
on our arrival was dished up in large wooden bowls, one of which was 
handed to each. The flesh appeared very glutinous, with something 
of the flavor and appearance of mutton. Feeling sometliing mo\ e 
beliind me, I looked round, and found that I had taken my seat among 
a litter of fat young puppies/' 

Harmon, writing in 1820, after nineteen years spent in travel 
through the Northwest from Montreal to the Pacific, speaks of the 
smaller dog used in hunting, and a larger dog as welL The latter is 
rank and not good eating like the former, of whose flesh the Indians 
and French Canadian myagnirs were very fond. 

In the New England shell-heaps, the dog-remains occur either as 
burials — the entire skeleton undisturbed — - or as seattert^d portions, 



ALLEN: DOGS OF TMK AMKHtrAN ABnUIGINKH* 100 

ns if the hones had been thrown out aft(^r the flesh \vas eaten. Tlren* 
seems, however, to be little or no evidenee tliat the bones were cracked 
for marrow , 

The Jesuit father Biard in KiKK Tuentions dogs, kettles, and axes as 
among tlie presents given by a young Indian to the fatlier of liis 
intended bride in payment for lier. Among other customs of ihv 
Indians of Arcadia, he recounts that at a funeral, dogs are presented 
the dying man, as well as skins, arrow^s, and so forth. The dogs are 
then killed in order to send them on before liim to the other world, 
and their flesh is kiter eaten by the people (Jesuit relations, iSfHl, 
3, p. 101). 

C LA LLA M -I X DI AN D G . 

Plate 4, fig. 1. 

1S40. Canis laniger Hamilton Smith, Jardine's Nat. library. Mammalia^ 

10, p. 134. 
1867. Canis domesticiiSj eamfschatkensis langipilis Fitzingerj Ritzb. K. akad. 

wiss, Wien^ 56, pt. 1, p. 406. 

Characters. — A mediuni-si^ed dog, with erect ears, and bushy tail. 
Hair rather tliick and woolly; white, or perhaps bro\Mi and black. 

Distribtdion. — ^ Formerly found among the coast Indians of the 
Puget Sound region and Vancouver Island, Lord (1866^ 2, chap. 11) 
asserts that these dogs seem to have first }.)een kept by the Cliinook 
Indians, once very numerous near the mouth of the Columbia Ri^'er, 
and were thence carried to Puget Sound and Xainimo* The source of 
this infonnation is not given, but it is worth remarking that Lewis 
and Clark make no mention of the breed on the Columbia. \"an- 
couver found them near the then Port Orchard, and apparentl\ at 
least as far up the Sound as Admiralty Inlet. IliLUiilton Smith 
implies that they were to be found at Nootka Sound on the west 
coast of Vancouver Island. 

Dcscripiions, — The earliest account of this dog is tliat by the navi- 
gator, Vancouver (179S, 1, p- 26(3) • In Mayj 1792, while at Port 
Orcliard, Puget Sound, he writes: — 

*' The dogs belonging to this tribe of Indians [at Port Orchard] were 
nmnerous, and much resembled those of Pomeranla, tliough in general 
somewhat larger. They were all shorn as close to the skin as sheep are 
in England; and so compact were their fleeces, that large portions 




470 nrLLF-Tix: miskim of coMPAKAiivr: zooloct, 

roiild hv lifted up l>y u ctinu r without causing any st^paration. They 
wvTv eoinposecl of a mixtiuv of a coarse kind of %vonl, with vvvy fine 
lonji hair, capaMe of hein*; spun intt) yarn. This gave mc reason to 
lieHeve* that their woollen clothing might in part be composed of this 
material mixed witli a (iner kind of wool from some other animal, as 
their gannents were all too Hue to he manufactured from tlie coarse 
coating of the tlog alone* The alunidanee of these garments amongst 
the few people we met with, indicates the animal from whence the 
raw material is procured, to be very common in this neighborhood; 
l>ut as they lun e no one domesticated excepting the dog, their supply 
of wool for their clothing can onh' be obtained hv hunting the wild 
creature that produces it; of which Ave could not obtain the least 
information." Elsewhere he mentions a deer ** thev had killed on the 
island, and from the number of persons that came from thence, the 
major part of the remaining inhabitants of the village, with n great 
number of their dogs, seemed to ha\e been engaged in the chase/' 
this near Admiralty Inlet. Farther up Puget Island, 48'' 2|^N, 237° 
57§'Wj at a large village ''they were met by upwards of two hundred 
[Indiana], some in their canoes wnth their families, and others walking 
along the shore, attended by about forty dogs in a drove, shorn close 
to the skin like sheep [this in June]" (IhliL, p. 284). 

Hamilton Smith (1840) who, in addition to VancouAers account, 
had infonnatioii from an Indian who had resided two years at 
Xootka, speaks of it as a large dog, ** with pointed upright ears, docile, 
but chiefly \ iduable on account of the immense load of fur it bears on 
the back, of white, and brown, and l)lack colours, but having the 
woolly proportion so great and fine, that it may well be called a fleece/' 

Xotwithstanding Smith's assertion as to the *^ brown and black 
colours" of this dog, it is not at all certain that this was the usual case, 
Suckley (ISfiO, p, 112)'"says positively that -'all the Clallam dogs 
that I sa^^' were pure whiie; but they have the sharp nose, pointed 
ear, and hang-* log, thievish appearance of other Indian dogs/' Gibbi^ 
also {Ibid,} mentions their whiteness only, and adds that the very 
soft hair is sheared like the wool of sheep, and made into blankets, 
though at that time, 1860, it was ** generally intermixed with the 
ru veilings of old English blankets to facilitate twisting with [?into] 
yam/* 

Lord (18(;C) furtlier remarks that this white, long-haired dog was 
kept by only a few coast tribes near ^ ancouver. The dogs w^ere 
confined '*on ishuids to prevent their extending or escaping," and it 
differed **in every specific detail from all the other breeds of dogs 



ALLKX: \}iii,S (IF THK AM1J{1< AX A H( jHICiINKS. 471 

helfyn^niig to either rna^;t or iiihinrl Indian^/' He supposes it to he of 
Japanese origin, recallinii; tlie long-hairt^d Japanese Lapnlog, which 
however, seems remote eiiongh in other characters. I^orcl adds that 
^'in the niannfai'tnre of ru^^s from the liair of this dog, the Indians often 
added the wool of the Mountain Gnat, or duck feathers, or wild lienip. 
They d>ed the hair as welh He obtained several of these l>lankets 
along the coast for tlie Britisli MuseuHL Xewconihe (HKJl), p, r>()) 
^nves a fnnlier aeeount f>f thr method of inakiiig yarn from the liair, 
which he says, was removerl from the dried skin of th*^ dog with 
knives or pulled out after moistening the hide aufl *' sweating" the 
hair to loosen the roots. The wool was then madi^ into loose tln"eads 
hy rolling. With the introduction of Hudson's Bay (\>mpany 
blankets tliis industry has ceased and the dog was practically extinct 
at the tiine of his writing. 

As to the origin or affinities of this lireed. Httle can be said. Some 
writers ha\*e classed it with the Siberian and Eskimo dogs, l)Ut it is 
likely that it was a breed of the larger type of Indian dog. The dis* 

inclination to take to water, made use of b\- tlie Indians to confine 

1. 

the animals to islands, is a trait sliared by the P'skimo Dog. The 
precaution was possibly taken in order to prevent crossing with other 
1 creeds of Indian Dogs. "■ 

Windle and Htmiphreys (1890) in their tal*le of cranial proportions 
of Eskimo Dogs, include those of aNootka Dog in tlie British ]Museum. 
It is not clear, however, if it was from a dog of the breed undei" eon- 
sideration, and as no actual dimensions are given, the figures are not 
comparable with other direct measurements* 

I am indebted to Mr, (\ T, Currellv, Curator of the lio\al On- 
tario Museimi of Archaeok)gy at Toronto, for a photograph (FUite 4, 
fig. 1) of the unique painting made at Victoria, B. (\, in 1S40, by 
Paul Kane and now at that ^luseum. In the forcCTOimd is one of the 
wliite woolly tlogs in cjuestion, its apparentl\- erect ears nearly hidden 
in the long hair of the head. Xearby an Indian woman is weaving 
a blanket, no doubt from yarn made of dogs' hair, a ball of which 
another woman in the background is spinning. The use of dogs' 
hair in making blankets is not confined to the Clallams. The ancient 
Zunis appear to have made similar use of it; and Bannister flS69) 
mentions an Indian blanket from Mackenzie Ri\'er, woven of dogs' 
hair. The natives of New Zealand regularly employed dogs' hair 
for braiding and ornament. 




72 iti'LUF/rrx: misktm of mjmparativk zoflLOGV, 



1M4. i'aniii ingui Tsclmtli, Fiitrrs. uVht die fnimn Peruana, Hiernloi^ie^ 

p. 13, 249. 
HS5, Canis inyae picmtrin^ Noliring, Sitzb. Ges(ils('!i. natiirf. freunde 

Berlin, p. 5-13. 

Charactrrs, — This is tlie larjjir <I«\a; of the ancitnt Peruvians, It 
was about the size of a small t/uUie, hut more heavily pruptjrtioiu (L 
Tschiuli descrihes it as liaving tlie liead small, snout ratlier sharply 
[HiiiitecL upper Hp not eleft; ears i^'ect, triangular, sinall; body short 
aiid strong, squanly Iniilt C* unterset^t"), legs rather short; tail 
about two thirds the length of body, fully haired and curled iorvvurch 
Pelage rough, Inng, and thick; color tlark ochre-yellow with dark 
wavy shadings; belly and inntT side of linil>s someAvhat brighter than 
the ground color of the l>ack. No light spots above the eyes* 

The skull is heavy in proportion to its size, with a narrow rostrum. 
The lirain-case is rugose for the attac^hment of muscles, yet the tem- 
poral muscles, even in old dogs seem to little more than meet medially, 
so that at most only a low sagittal crest is fonntd in old animals 
except at t!ie extreme occiput, where it is contrastingly marked, form- 
ing a high knifcHHlge on the median line of the interparietal. The 
palate shows a strong thickening at its posterior end, foniiing two low 
ridges one on each side between tlie last molar and the posterior narial 
opening, 

Disfrih}ttiotK — The frjrmer distrilmtion of this bret^d has not been 
definitely traced. Munnnified remains are known from Ancon, 
Peru, and from various sites that have been excavated in that country. 
In Tschudi's time it appeared to be confined to the upland tribes of 
Indians, Of this type were all the mummies and skulls of dogs 
fomid by him in ihe ancient graves among the Sierras. It probably 
was kept l>y the Indians of northwestern Argentina as well. 

Xomrnrlafun\ — Tschudi in 1S44, was apparently the first to name 
this as a distinct I > reed of flog, Canis ingae. Forty years later Nehring 
in writing uf the dog-nunnmies from tlie ancient necropolis of Ancon, 
referretl it to .j cullie-like type with the condiination, Cmds In gar 
IHTuariuH, It is, however, \'ery differtnit cranially and otherwise 
from the Collie. 

MeiLsurciaritfs. — The largest Inca Dog ameng those from Ancon 



ALiJX: UlKiS OF THE AMERICAN AUniinUNKS. 



4— 1 1 



stiHlird !*y Nrlirini: I ISS4a) was sniallrr than a She(*p~dc>g, with a skull 
about 172 iiUTK Iniig, Iiunirms 147, iiliia 172, radius 1 10. A siintllrr 
one bad a skull \vnv:\\\ (*r Mm, ln^ad ami IhhIv \\i\0, tail inrliidirijj liair 

^ *-■ 

24(K IniiiuTus VM\, In tlir Unwr jaws the first prettiolar was hv- 

ijiiently missing. 

Tlu^ lollowin^ii' table strives nn^asurmiettts of tlir six larj^est skulls 
anion^ a series of niiu* beluu^uiu^^ tcj tht* l\ S, X, M. 



M^asuremenis of the Skulls 


172.888 


1 


17« ■..:{!() 


17l'.s.iS 


I7ii.:iHr, 

* 


l7i'i..«J'J 


Lengthy (occiput to aaterior base 














of incisors) 


155 


1(14 


lliO 


1 ti3 


172 


178 


Basal length 


lay 


14.-, 


140 


144 


151 


159 


Palatal length 


78 


SI 


81 


79 


84 


SG 


Orbit to tip uf preinaxillary 


(i3 


m 


m 


68 


72 


/o 


Upper tooth-row 


83 




84 


=_ 




9; J 


(alveoH) 


Rf> 


SI 


82 


82 


85 


89 


Front of canine to back of molar- 














(orowns) 


(ir> 




m 






76 


Front of canine to back of molar- 




' 










(alveoli) 


64 


OS 


67 


ti7 


69 


74 


Length of premolar* (crown) 


16.5 


18 


17 


17.5 


17.5 


19 


" " '' (:ilvrulus) 


10 


17 


16 


16.5 


IT- 


17 


" *' molars^^ (crowna) 


17 




17 




IS 


19 


(alveoli) 


1 5 . 5 


17 


15 


Ui 


16.5 


17 


Zygomatic width 


92 


99 


98 


- 96 


ins 


107 


Breadth of occipital condyles 


32 


34 


33 


32 


34 


35 


Median length of nasals 


48.5 




51 


52 


55 


56 


r?/jiii^f ¥»Z'4* , \\ ritinrr arimil' 


1S-U '1 


r«r'Ullfl 


i rlp'^rr 


iKf^>« ih 


IP fliipl 


' pTi:ir- 



acteristies of this dog as treachery and mischievotisness- Every 
Indian but and shepherd of the Sierra and puna had several The^v 
seemed to show a special antipathy toward white people. A Euro- 
pean traveller approaebing an Indian hut on horseliaek would }>e beset 
by tliese dogs springing up against his horse to bite his legs. They 
are courageous, and fight an enemy with detennhiation, dragging 
themselves to the attack even when mortallv w oun<ied. The Indians 
train them to track and capture tinauiuus. 

In their great work on the Necropolis of Ancon, Reiss and Stiibel 
include a brief chapter byNebring flSS4b) on the mummified remains 
of dogs discovered there. Some of these are figured and show a pale 



474 HI LLKTix: Mrsi-:rM of iomfahativk zoolchiv. 

yt41uwi.sh coloring wiili darkiT iuvus. In a more extt^iisivt^ articlr 
Xt4iring (lS84tO gives a particular aeeoinit nf th*^ <lt)gs of Aiu-oil 
He first transcribes passages from Garcilasso de In Vegn to show that 
the liKds liad dop^ previous to the Spaoisli eoii(|iiest, and tliat the 
ih)g entered into certain religious rites of the Iiieas* A inuuuiiified 
iloj: is (leserihed as having tliick hair, shorter, Iiowever, on heart and 
feet, thickest on neck and breast fomiing a kind of mane. The rohir 
was yellow, clear or soiled in places, with irreguhir hnnvn -shaded areas, 
Tla* tail was thick and !)ush\', w<jlf-lik(s also vt^llow: The ears of 
most of the specimens seemtMl to have been clipped. He suggests tlu* 
North .\inerican Wolf or Coyote as the original source of tht^ Inca 
dogs* but there seems no gmunil for the selection of tnther as an 
immediate ancestor. 

More recently, Eaton (1010, p, 25) has recordt*d tlie discoviiy of 
dog-mummies with pre-Columbian burials at Maehu Ficchu, IVru, 
He adds that ** dogs of this general type, though usually a little smaller 
than those figured in Keiss and Stiibers Necropolis of Ancon, vvt^rc 
frequently seen in the parts of the Cordillera that T visited, and thest* 
animals may be largely derived from the ancient stock. . . The 
modem Indian dogs of this ancient type are very wolf-like and numi- 
fest a most inconvenient fear of the camera/' He suggests the obvious 
possif)ility of present-day mixture \^ith breeds imported from 
Europe, and gives a reproduction (p. X), fig. 47) of a photograph 
showing diml\ an Indian with his dog. 

The fine series of Peru\"ian dog-skulls in the W S, N, A[. contains 
nine that show complete gradation in size between the smallest (which 
I have considered more or less t\T>ical of the Techichi) and the largest 
which represents the Inca Dog. Since these skulls arc more or less 
comparable as to age, it seems likely that the gradation in size is due 
to free interbreeding of the two sorts of dogs. The largest skull of 
the series (U. S. N. M. 170,309, of wliich the measurements have been 
ji^en) is almost precisely matched by the skull of a Common Indian 
Dog from Peel River, Arctic .Vinerica, collected by Robert Kenni- 
cott about ISfiO {V\ S. N. ISL U,219). The only obvious differences 
are that tlic^ i)alate of the Inca Dog shows the peculiar thickened ridges 
at the posterior end and is much narrower across the occipital con- 
fiyles* The latter characteristic is shared by the other dog-skulls 
from Peru in contrast with the northern dogs, and is no doubt among 
the latter a result of their use as sledge-dogs, for the greater develop- 
ment of the neck and chest muscles in hauling might well enough 
demand a broader support from the skulL This general similarity 



\1J.KX: DtXJS iVV TJIK \MKKirAN VltnKHilXKS, 47') 

of skull and skt^lctal proportiiHvs probaUs indicates n *lo8er rtlutiuii- 
ship with the larger liuliau dt^j^s (*f noi'thi^ni Nnrth Aiiniica, tliiiu with 
the Wolf or Cm vote as Xehiin^^ has sujrgesttnl. 

What nia> he feral dnjjs of this hn*r(1 are said tu l>e loiuid hi the 
Ishind of Juan Feriiaiuiez, off Peru. Aeeurding to Knnel U'^^^'r P- '^-^J 
they are tlie native Araiicarian dogs, sliuggy-coated, lA iiiediuiti size, 
and very pnwerfuh Seniitained ones are sometimes used thvw m 
Imiiting the feral goats, 

Iliering (1013) has recorded tlie diseoxery of an en tire skeleton of a 
dog at Hiialfin, Salta Province, in nortliwestern .Vrgentina, Its 
skull ineasurements, as recorded hy this author, correspond well with 
the larger of those above given, and Ins identifieatimi of thi^ -^pecinien 
as an Tnca Dcjg is probabl}^ correct. 



LONG-HAIRKD Tn( A DOG. 

Characters. — Apparently sunilar to the Inca Dog^ but with U>nger 
coat* 

Distrihution. — Peru and probably coastwise to parts of Chile, 

Xotes. — - In his Bibliography of the tribes of Tierra del Fuego and 
adjacent territories. Cooper (1917, p. 44) nientious ^'a breed of long- 
haired shaggy dogs" which was f^'mierly raised among some of the 
Chonos Indians north of the Taitao Peninsula, Cliile, about Lat, 45° 
South, Nothing is kno\Mi about these dogs except the statements of 
Goicueta and Del Techo, based perhaps on independent testimony. 
It is assumed that this breed was of native origin since at that early 
date (about 1553) it is rather unlikely that sucli dogs woidd lui\ e 
been obtained from Etu^opeans* Possibly they were derived from the 
larger collie-like type of Inca dog anciently found among the Peruvians 
(Eaton^ 1916, p, 49), From the hair of these dogs, the Chonos made 
short mantles that covered the shoidders and upper part of the trunk. 
According to Cooper, the information of Goicueta is based on the rela- 
tion of Cortes Hojea's expedition of 1553-54^ when he commanded 
one of the Aessels mider Ulloa, and possibly also furnished one of the 
sources for Del Techo's account. The latter was a Jesuit missionar\- 
who wrote in 1073 concerning the labors of his brethren among the 
Chonos of the Guaitecas Islands. 

Referable to this breed is probably the long-haired dog described 
by Nehring (1887a) from a well-preserved mummy found in the course 
of excavations at Ancon, Peru, It was found \^Tapped in cloth of 




4i0 miJ.KTLX: MISEI M of t OMPAKATn k ztKiuxn* 

trt*t^-Avo(tl, its lu^ad antl fi*et tit/d tnirrthoi\ Tn the shv of its skull 
anil Ii"ii-l>oiu*s it was snid to ho like tlir ordinitrv Tnra Doy; of the rollie- 
likt* type, hut ilothed with u!iusuall\ long liair, especially on the feet 
ami tail. The hair is deserilxd as of a thili yellow. Tliis dog must 
have lieen \ery similar lo tlie Loujx-haircHl Pueldo Dog previously 
ineiitioneil as diseovereil hv Messrs. Gueri}sc^\ and Kidder in exeava- 
tioiis ai Marsli Pass, Arizona. 



Patagonian Dog. 

Vkaracin\s\ — A medium-sized dog, as big as a hirge Foxhoimd, 
coat usually short and wiry, or hinger and of softer texture; ears 
slH>rt and erect; color dark, more or less unifonn, rarely spotted; 
dark Ijrovvnish hlack, dark tan, or oceasionallv black; tail bushy. 
General appearance like a small Wolf. 

Di.strihutiofL- — Found among the Foot Indians of the eastern parts 
of Tierra dil I'tiego, northward into Patagonia, the nortbwestward 
limits of distribution not clear! v known. 

l?/'mflr/rA\— Hamilton Smith (1840, p. 213) quotes a letter from 
Captain Fitzroy of the Beacjlp:, that the Patagonian Dog is strong, 
about the size of a large Foxhotmd, coat short and wiry, though 
sometimes soft and long, Hke that of a Nev^^oundland Dog, In color 
it is dark, nearly uiiifonn, rarely spotted. It is w^olfish in appearance, 
somewhat resembles the Sheplierd Dog, will growl and bark Inudly. 

It is doubtless a dog of tliis breed that is meant by Furlong in his 
statement that of the two types of dogs found among the Onas of 
Tierra del Fuego, one is like a Wolf. 

Gunningliam (1871, p. 307) mentions that while near Gente Grande 
Bay, Sandy Point, in the Strait of Magellan, three dogs wandered 
about in the neighborhood of his landing party, ''barking and howling 
dismally* The first was very much like a fox in size and general 
appeariince, and of a reddish-gray colour; the second had a piebald 
smooth coat, with drooping ears; while the third was clothed wdth long 
dark brownish -black hair, had erect ears, and presented a marked 
resemblance to a small wolf J' The first was probably a Fuegian Dog, 
obtained through intercourse with tribes of the western part of the 
Magellanic Archipelago; the second was possibly a mongrel European 
dog; the last perhaps a Patagonian Dog. 

Of tliis animah Spegazzini (1SS2, p. ITO) writes that it differs greatly 
from the Fuegian Dogs of the Canoe Indians, ^*y para mi serian 6 



A1>LKX: DOds ()F THK AMKUIt AX AHcntUJlN ES, 477 

rudo." It is tlitlieult, lit>wevei\ to see any j^rnnnd fnr tlrTix^ins it 
froiii the peculiar rampi'au \Vi>lf. It is muclj larger than the Fnej^ian 
Dog, and is descrihed hy Spegas^zini as tall, sl<MiclerIy Uitilt, with fierce 
eyes; lonir-haind and 1>ushy-tailed; tlie color pmvailindy dark tan, 
lait oceusionally lihiek; ratlier silent, not Imrkinj^ though ^ving voice 
to inelan<']i(>lv howls. 

P^iTzroy (see Hatnilton Sniitlh 1^40, i>. 215) particularly (lescril>e;s a 
dog seen near tlie Strait of LeMaire. No temptation would induce its 
master to part with it. It was the size of a hirge setter, with a ** wolf- 
ish appearance ahout the head, and looked extremely sa\"a*re. Uehind 
the shoulders it was quite smooth and short-haired, hut from the 
shoulders fonvard it had thick rough hair/' giving it a lion-like ap- 
pearance, *' of a dark grey colour, lighter beneath, and white on the 
belly and breast; the ears were short hut pointed, the tail, smooth 
and tapering;*' the fore quarters very strong but tlie hinder appearing 
weaker. The short-haired tail seems unnatural for a Fatagonian Dog, 
^nd may hnvv been evidence of a strain of l>lood from a European 
source. 

The eastern Fuegians or Ona.s, are considered by etlinologists to be 
derivatiACS of the Patagonians, and no doubt originally had these 
dogs from their mainland relatives, or brought them at the time when 
they colonized the Fuegian country. 

It is unfortunate that no l)ones or figures of the Patagonian Dog 
are available for comparison. Ihering (1913^ has^ however, recorded 
the skull of a prehistoric dog from Amaicha, Tneuman province, 
northwestern Argentina, which may represent it, and at the same 
time indicate nearly its northern range. This skull was 190 mm. in 
total (?occipitnro?tral) length, the upper fourth premolar 19 mm.» 
the combined upper molars 20 mm., hence a somewhat hirger breed 
than the Inca Dog. 

The native Patagonian Dog is not to be confused with the dogs 
introduced by Europeans, that hiive since become feral on the pampas 
of southern South America. These, according to various writers 
(Rengger, l>i30; Hamilton Smith, 1840; Rasse, 1S79) are mongrel of 
several breeds, notablx' one like the Great Dane. Tliry arc said to 
go in troops and to make burrows in w^hich to shelter their young. 
This burrowing habit has lieen noticed in case of other feral dogs. 
Thus Cones (1876) records the case of a brindled cur that became feral, 
and took up its habitation in a burrow on the open prairie, near 
Cheyenne, Wyoming, and in this den had a litter of five puppies. 




478 BrLLETIN: MrSEUM OF COMPARATrVE ZOOLOCfY. 

FityJnjjcr UbiOT, p, 397) upplies to the iVral Pampeuu Dog the Latin 
com bin at ion ''Cauis (hiwrsi{ciLs\ pyrcnoicm ako'^ (I) and 1)riefly states 
that it is prtvhably a hyl>riil between the Pyrenian Dog and the Buii- 
dog, Hamilton Smith (1S40) had previously deBcribed it under the 
Latin name Cani^i eamplragus. 

As to the origi!! of the Patagonian Dog, tliore is little satisfaetory 
evidence, but it may be assumed to be a derivative of the same stock 
as the Inca Dog, The tooth measurements of the skull recorded Ijy 
von Ihering (1913), cf. p. 477^ accord very nearly Avith tliose of the 
largest Inca Dog of our table (p. 473), though even larger. 



Mexican Hairless Dog; Xoloitzcuintli, 
Plate 2; Plate 3, fig. 2. 

1651. Ltipus mexicamis Reeclii and Lynceus, Rerum medicarum Novae 

Hispaniae thesauriLs, p. 479, fig. 
1766. Canis mexkanus Linnfi, Syst- nat», ed. 12, 1, pt. 1, p. 60, (based an 

Recohi and L3^neeus), 
17SS. Canis familiaris aegypHus GrneUn, Linnets Syst,^ nat., ed. 13, 1, pt. 1, 

p. 68 (in part). 
- — ~ Canis familiaris orthoius xolmtzcuinlli Reichenbach, Naturg. raubth., 

p. 150. 
182L Canis nxidus Schinz, Cuv. thierreichs, 1, p. 218. 
1827. Cani^ faniiUaris caraibaetis Lesson^ Man. mammalogie, p. 163. 
1S44< Canis caraibictbs Tsehudi, Fauna Peruana, TherologiOj p. 249* 
1887, Dysodus gihbus Cope^ Ainer. nat-, 21, p. 1126, 

CharacteTS. — A dog of nieditim-size, rather heavil}^ built, and 
loBg-bodied in proportion to its height; ears large and erect; tai! 
thickj drooping or carried nearly straight behind; hair nearly absent 
except for a few coarse vibrissae and generally a sparse coating on the 
tail, particularly near the tip; sometimes a tuft on the crown. The 
skin is usually pigmented, a slaty gray, or reddish gray, paler in 
the bends of tlie legs; sonietiines blotched with white, 

Disfrihution. — This race seems to have been native among the 
peoples of Central and South America from Chihuahua perhaps con- 
tinuously southward, to the Peruvian lowlands, and in some of the 
Greater Antilles; it may also have been indigenous among the In- 
dians of Paraguay. 

Ilisiory. — The first account of the Mexican Hairless Dog by a 



AT,Lt:x: notis of the ami hii'an AiiMRHMXKs, 47H 

iMiropean, semis to i>e^ tliat of I^'mnciseo llrriKiink^z, wlm livecl 
betwcrn the vrars 131 1 and InTS. His Ili^^toria AiihjiMliuin (*t Miihtm- 
limn Nova(* llispaiiiae, is printed on 96 folio pai2:c\s as |>art of Recelii 
and Lynctms's Rennn TMedicanno Xo\ae His]>aniae Thosninus, 
IG51, wliicli was uppareutSy intended as a intnioj^mphie (elaboration 
of Treruiindez's work. Tins writer lH*oug;ht back an aeeoiint of tlin^e 
sorts of doLTs, wlildi were in liis day kept l>y the native IMexieans. 
The first of these lie had himself seen, but the two others lie had 
neitlier seen, nor known of thi'ir haxinji bern lirought to Ein'ope. 
This first sort he states, is ealled tlie Xiiloj/fzf'tiinifi and is larger than 
the others, exceeding three feet in body length, Init with the peculi- 
arity of Iiaving no hairy co\*ering, yet with a soft skin, spotted with 
ftdvous and sjate color. C^Prinnis Xoh3\lzeuintli voeatiis ahos 
corporis vincit magnititdine, quae tres plerum; exeedit cnbit^r>St sed 
habet peculiare nullis pilis tegi, verimi moUi tantum, ac depili euti, 
fuUio atque t'yaneo colore macLilata,'*), The two other sorts of dogs 
were the hunip-l^aeked or ^Michnacan dog and the Teehichi, elsewhere 
discussed. Tlie Xohyizcmuili of Hernandez is elearlv the Hairless 
Dog, and a most elaborate account of the animal is given by liecclii 
and Lyneeus flOol, p, 479 flM witli a fairly recognizal)le figure (Plate 2, 
fig. 1). These ant!n>rs apparently had an actual specimen, possii)ly 
one brought alive to Europe; at all events the\^ describe its appearance 
as fierce and wolf-like, with a few bristlv hairs about the moyth, the 
mammae ten as in the wolf and dog, and the vertebrae of the same 
number as hi a dog-skeleton with whicli they compared it, namely 
seven cer^'icals, thirteen dorsals, seven lumbosacrals, seventeen caud- 
als. They name the annual Lupus lurxicaitus in contradistinction 
to their Alco or Cauls mvxicaua, which was prol)ably a Raccooiu 
This name appears in zoological nomenclature in the twelfth edition 
of Linne's Systema naturae under the genus Canis. The diagnosis, 
evidentlv based on the figure and <lescription just noticed, reads: 
**C- Cauda deflexa laevi, coipore cinereo fasciis fuseis maeulisciue 
fulvis variegata'*; the habitat is given as the warmer parts of Mexico. 
LInne\s first reference is to Brisson, whose description — 'HJanis 
cinereus, tnaculis fulvis \'ariegatus" — is clearly from tlie same 
source. Hitherto Linne's Canfs' mi\rivanus has been regarded as 
applying to the wolf of Soutlieni Mexico, but no true wolf is known 
from that part of the country. Miller (1912a') seems to have been the 
first to question the propriety of u:>ing the name for a wolf, but leaves 
the matter unsettled, saying that according to E. ^V. Nelson, ^*the 
wolf of the southern end of the ^Mexican tableland became extinct 




4M) Bi lletin: mi'seim uf comfarativk zooixigy, 

aluiiit fifty ytars ago" (IS^ilt). Sniiu^ ollur name iiiust theivfore l>e 
appIitHl tn this wolf if it vwv Uv sliown to he clistiiK-t, 

The iihtive accounts hv Hernandez and h\ Reechi and Lvnceiis are 
the hasis of most of tlie earher references to the ^lexican Hairless Dog. 
Lesson, in hH27, llovve^"cr, redescrilied it uiuhM- the nanie varaUmiu.s^ 
and nnu'Hn, earlier, 17SS, \\iu\ considtnTd it tlie same as the Turkish 
or E^^yptiiin Hairless Dog, under tlie name Canh j\ argjipfiu.'^: this 
howe\t*r, is a fuiirless variety of another hreeth 

Xfjfi\^.— The fonner iHstrihution of this reniarka!)le dog is now 
liardly iraeeahh' with certainty except in a jjeneral way, hut it was 
kept hy the Mexicans of Chihuahua and southward, as well as by 
the nati\c*s of I\:ru, mure especially those of the lower altitudes. 
ActtirdiniT to Seler (1890) the Mexicans wrapped these, dogs in cloths 
at nijrht as a protection apunst cold. Some were not naturally 
hairless, hut were rubbed with turpentine from early youth, causing 
the hair to fall out. On the other hand, dogs naturally liairless wt^re 
raised, as at tlu^ pueljlos Teotlixco and Toeilan. The Zapotec and 
^laya Uingua^es have separate words for the hairless dog. The term 
.raloifzntiidli is said to signify the monstrous dog. Patrick Browne 
(17S0, p. 4Sl>1 ^\ riling of the natural histcny of Jamaica, mentions the 
Inchan dog as "Canis pilis carens, minor/' a creature **frer|iient 
among the JciVff and r?rf/rora*' in that island; he (ieseribes it as *' gen- 
erally aliout the size of a eur-dog with a rough skin, whicli looks Hke 
the liidr of a hog/' There is nothing to indicate, limveverj that the 
breed was common in the West Indies, 

In Peru, Tschudi (1844, p, 249) observed this dng mainly on the 
coast, since its hick of a hair\- coat made it uiiabk* to witlistand the 
cold of the higher altitudes of the interior exci^pt in tlie warm valleys, 
and then onl\ if carefully protected. -He descrit>es it as slaty gray 
or rf*drlish gray, sometimes spotted, and says it is voiceless. He is 
probably mistaken, lunvever, in supposing thes€ were tlie dogs found 
}\v (^olutnbus amouH the Lucavans. Xearh' twentv rears previously, 
I^^sson liad seen the Hairless Dog in numljcrs at Payta, Peru. 

According to Rengger (1830), a hairless dog, possibly identical with 
the Mexican Hairless Dog. was indigenous among the Indians of 
Paraguay, ^^"ho had a special word — i/ffguff — for it. He descriljes it 
as haxing a relatively small head, pointed snout, ears erect or only 
their tips flrooping forward, rump fat^ extremities fine, tail spindle- 
shajx (1 and usually (hooping. Some individuals do not Imrk, but 

howl onlw 

■ 

During the last hundred years, little attention seems to have been 



allkn: uuus uf the amkhican AHnHnaxKs, 4sl 

given tn this hrrtMl, altiioiij^li lutrly it has \)vvn taken up I*\' d<t^ Titn- 
cters. Ix^Conte, in lb5li, calls it tlie Comanche* Don, ^i^'**! ^**y^ ^^ '^ 
eoiiinion aniunj^^ the liithans of that tril^r, Imt, "though some nf thc-sc 
i]n'^< htiN t: been hrouj^^ht within the United States, we have no deserip- 
tinn of them/* Packard (1885) tiientions seeing one in his visit to 
Mexico, l)Ut they were apparently unco[iimon. In a recent leitt r 
from Mr. Artliur Stockdale, he .states that in Mexieci City they are 
now consiciereci somewhat of a rarity, thoui;!i said tt* l>e etunmon in 
Chilmahua, where however, little attention is paid them. 

There is some e\ idenee that they do not breed readily wn!i uormaUy 
haired dogs, yet such crosses liave been made, and (^urinusly th(* result 
seems to be that about <50% of the young are naked or pructieally so, 
the other 50% fully haired. Stoekdale (1917) records such a litter 
consisting of twt^ i)uppies, one hairless, the otlier norniak Knlm 
(1911) records a matinfj of a Hairless Dog with a Fox-ttTrier, the frair 
offspring of which comprised two naked and two completely-haired 
dogs. His microscopic study of the skin of the Hairless Dog inillcates 
that its character is that of a vnun^ emlirvo's, whence it mav be that 
the hairless character is merelv the retention of the embrvonic condi- 
tion, just as the short-nosed skull of the Japanese Lap-tlog seems to 
be a case of the retention of the embryonic proportions of the skull. 

As to the origin of this breed, it is most likely a variant of the larger 
type of Indian Dog, in which the hairlessness is due to a retention of 
the embryonic condition of the skin, precluding hair development, 
just as the short-nosed breeds of dogs are the result of the faihire of 
the facial bones to attain full growth. 

I have unfortunately been unable to obtain skulls for comparison. 



Small Indian Dog or Techichi, 

Plate 10, 

17SS. Canis favtiliaris americanus Gmelin, Linnc's Syst. nat., ed- 13, 1, 

pt. 1, p. 66 (in part), 
1792, Canis americanus plaiicus Kerr^ Aniaial kingdom, 1, p. 136 (based on 

the Teehiehi of Hernandez). 
1840. ?Ca?iis alco Hamilton Smith, Jardine's Nat. library. ^Jammalku 10, 

p. 135, pL 4 J left-hand fig. 
184L Wants familiaris cayennensis Blain^^lle, Osteog;raphie, Atlas, pL 7^ 
1867. Canis caraihaenSf henuuidfmi Fitzinger, Sitzb. K, akad, wiss.j Wien, 

56. pt. 1, p, 498. 
1882. fCanis ffibbus Duges, La naturaleza, 5, p. 14, fig. 1^, 




-i^^^ HI I J/KTIN: MrsEFM OF ( OMPARATIVE ZOUIXIGW 

Charactm\ — ^A snialL lii^ht-limbtMt dog, of ratlier slender propor- 
uun^s, narrow ilelieate heacK fine muzzle, erect ears. welinleA eloped 
tail, wliieli may have lieen elose-liaired. Colors Mack, Mack and 
\vhite» or perhaps hrownish or yellowish. 

Distribidiiyn, — Tliis was perhaps the dog of fox-like appearance 
noticeil b^ many of the early explorers, yet it is dill i cult to indicate 
the limits of its former distribution On the Atlantic seaboard, among 
the eonsidcTable quantity of skeletal remains examined, I ha\e sec*n 
nothing that could be referred to such a dog; yet Brereton, who 
reached tlu' Elizabeth Islands and coast of southern New England 
with Gosnold in 1(502, mentions "Dogs Hke Foxes, blacke and sharpe 
nosed*' among the "Commodities'' seen there. In the famous 
village site near jMadisonville, southwestern Ohio, its bones occur 
and there are in the Peabodv ]\lu>eum similar bones from the south- 
west and Yucatan, believed eciually to be pre-Columbian. Among 
the dog-skulls fotmd with Peruvian burials the same type occurs, as 
well as skulls intermediate between this and other dogs, and so proba- 
bly representing mongrel individuals. Probably then this type of 
dog was sprt^ad over at least the central and southwestern part of 
North America and parts of northwestern South America. 

Nomertclature. — This is assumed to be the Techichi of the earlv 
Spanish accounts of jMexican dogs, though there is little doubt that 
tft^o different animals as well as more than one breed of do^ were con- 
fused under this title bv the earlv writers and svstematists. It is of 
some importance, tlierefore, to examine their accounts careiully since 
the case is somewhat complex and involves the identity of the Alco 
of earlv T^Titers. Both Gmelin and Kerr based their names on the 
account of Recchi and Lynceus (1651, p. 466), who in turn refer to 
Hernandez's brief account (which they print), in the Historiae ani- 
malium et mineral ium Xovae Hispaniae, page 7. Hernandez who died 
in 1578, had visited ^lexico, and in his entmieration of its animals 
includes three sorts of native dogs. The first of these is unquestion- 
ably the ^Mexican Hairless Dog, and as he himself states, was the onlv 
one he saw personally (**caeteros vero neque conspexcram, neque 
adhuc eo[L e. ad Europam] delatos puto"). 

His account of the two other dogs is important and reads: — 
**Secundus MeHtensibus canilms similis est, candido, nigro, ac fultio 
colore varius, sed giberosus, gratusque iucunda qua^lam deformitate^ 
ac capite velut ah humtTis edito, quern Michuacanenseni abora \Tide 
est oriundus vocare solent* Tertius vero nuncupaius Techichi, 
Catulis similis est nostratibus, Indis edulis, tristi aspectu, ac caetera 



ALLKX; DUGS OF THK AMKRICAN AHORKUNFS, 48:^ 

vulgarilms simtlis. Atque haec tie nmilMis Xoiuic Hispaiiiju^ fiR-uitcr 
(lictii sunto." Translated frcHy. "The second is like the ■\rultese 
dogs, in color varied wiili white, black, and i'lilvous. but it is liimip- 
baeked and prized for this pleasing defunnit\ , and a head that appears 
to grow from the shoulders. Tt is called the Miehuacaii dog from 
the phice where it is native. The third sort of do<?. iiowevcr, is'^ealled 
Techiehi, and is like our Spaniels, but of sad countenance, thonsh in 
other respects like ordinary dogs. It is eaten by the Indians, "xhis 
then is briefly what I have to sa\ of the flogs of Mexico." The 
Techiehi apparently was in no wise peculiar as a small dog. The 
Michuacan animal, however, was lunnp-backed. witiiout conspicuous 
neck, its colors white, black, and fulvous. " varius." In their elabo- 
ration of Hernandez's account, Recchi and Lyneeus (1651, p. 4r>(i) 
fail to distinguish between these two supposed dogs; at all events 
their figure (Plate 3, fig. 1) and description deal altogether with the 
hump-backed aninud, of which they seem to have liad some knowl- 
edge or probably a preserved specimen. They figure a female under 
the name ' Canis Mexicatm' and the Mexican name Yizcuintcporzotli, 
the first half of which signifies 'dog.' Buffon, and later Gmelin, 
likewise failed to distinguish between Hernandez's second and third 
sorts of dogs, and the latter author in 17SS, combined the two under 
the name Amrricanus, w^ith a brief diagnosis based on the figure of 
Recchi and Lyneeus, viz., "magnitudine l [/. p. of the breed mclitaeus], 
capite parvo, aurlbus pendulis, dorso curvato, cauda brevi," Under 
this name, Gmelin included: a. YtzcuinteporzotU, or the Cauls mexi- 
cana of Recchi and I.ynceus and b. Techiclii of Hernandez. Ob\'iously 
the diagnosis applies to the hmnp-backed animal onl\% to wliich 
Buffon had already applied the native name Alco, following Recchi 
and Lyneeus. This name appears to have been of doubtful applica- 
tion to the common dog, but was used at times by later ^\Tite^s to 
indicate the small native dog of Peru and Mexico. Kerr (1 792, p. 136) 
endeavors to improve on Gmelin by distinguishing with Latin names 
the two varieties of tlie latter's Canis americaiim. He first trans- 
scribes the description and then distinguishes : *' a. Fat Alco. — 
Catiis amcricauus obesus" and " b. Tecliichl.— CawM americanus 
planais," with descriptive accounts from Hernandez and liis elobora- 
toTs, corresponding to Gmelin 's "a" and "b." 

What then was this Alco? A study of Recchi and Lynceus's 
figure (Plate 3, fig. 1 ) and description seem to indicate clearly that they 
had in mind a Raccoon. They describe its nose, forehead, and eye- 
brows as white, these markings evidently delimiting the dark face. 




4S4 HrLLKTix: mi skim df iumpakativf zoolugv: 

while the peculiar and iliaracteristic upward slope uf the l>ack in tiie 
live animal is thus described: '* Dorsmii eaint'H iiislar gil>bosuin, {iost 
colhnii snhito ad pectus aeeHiu\ sed eo\as \ ersus decliue*" The tail 
is said to he slif>rt, l)arely reaching the heel, the mammae six in num- 
ber. They further note its \ery fat belly, beautitully covered with 
thick bhiek liair varied with spots; feet and shanks whitisli, cUiws 
strongly exsertetk These churaeteristics recall the Raccoon more 
than an\' otlier animal. There are, howt^ver, eight mammae in tliis 
auiuiab and the ears are not pendulous as tlescribed, but these dis- 
crepancies may be ilue to inaccuracy of ol)servation, or the condition 
of the specimen (perhaps a preserved hide) wliicli the authors seem to 
have had. The account quoted from Aeosta (1590, p. 277) doubtless 
refers to the same animal and not to a dog. This author, in his 
Historia natural y moral de las Indias, w^rites: — '^Aerdaderos perros 
no h^s auia en Tiidios, sino nnos semejantes a perrillos, que los Tndios! 
llamaiian Alen: y por su semejana a los que ha sido Ueuados de 
Espana^ tambicn lus llaman Alco: y son tan amigos destos perrillos 
que se quitaran £4 comer, por darselo: y quando van eaniiuo, los lUnuin 
consigo acuestas, o en el seno/' (Of real dogs there are none in tiic 
Indies, save certain animals resembling little dogs, which the Indians 
call Alco; and on account of their resemblance to our dogs brought 
here from Spain, the Indians call these Alco as veil: and so fond arc 
they of their little dogs that they deny themselves of food in order to 
give it to them ; and when they go on a journey they carry the little 
dogs with tlieni on their shoulders or in their arms). The Raccoon ' 
rather than a small <log seems to be indicated here, and the lial)it of 
carrying them about on journeys would perhaps account for the 
present-day anomalous distribution of the small species of raccuon in 
Central ,\inenca (Panama) and in the islands of Cozumel, Guade- 
loupe and New Pro\idence. Aeosta's story may also explain the 
transference of the name Alco to small dogs, though Philippi (1886) 
says this means dog in the Quichua tongue. 

An early mention of the tame Raccoon is found in Hakluyt's Voy- 
ages, in A relation of the commodities of Nova Hispania, and the 
maners of the inhaliitants, written by Henry Hawkes merchant, 
which lived five yeeres in the sayd countrey, written in 1572. He 
says: ** Their dogs are all crooked backt, as many as are of the coun- 
trey breed, and cannnt run fast: their faces are like the face of a pig 
or a hog, with sharpe noses/' 

If Gmelin's name atutrivantts be admitted as applying to a Raccoon 
it would antedate Wagler's name heniandezii (1831) for a Mexican 



ALLEN: DOGS OF THK AMKH!< AN AHOHHilNES, 4N 



Oi". 



H;it*c*H>n. In virw, howrver, r>f tlie um*(;rtainty as tci wliirli Unin uf 
llareoon it shoiiM indiratr, xhvvv seems to he no \irtnt' in ninkinj? 
such a chunj^^e at prestiiL 

Later writers have tried to diBCO\er U\ uig exaniph^s of tlie orii^qnal 
Alcd with stnall success, Hamilton Smith (1S40, p. Kil, pL 4, iefl- 
liand fij;.) rlescribes as Cuitis alfo, what he supposed to reprt^sent this 
breed, from a wlutred specimen in an exhibitiun of Mexican curiusities 
made by W, Hullock, iind ^aid tlien to 1k^ in the Egyptian Hall (British 
Musenni). He says of it: "That enterprisinti traveller *lescribed it 
as of the wild race; yet, from its appearance^ we at first considered it 
to be a Newfoundland puppy," Tlie figure sliows a small black and 
\\'hite dog ^\ith rather full-haired tail, ckmisy build, and ears laid 
back. Of the oiounted specimen, Hamilton Smith further writes: — 
^' It w^as small, with rather a large head; elongated occiput ; lull mu/>zle; 
pendulous ears; having lt>ng soft hair on the body. In colour^ it was 
entirely white, excepting a hxrge 1>lack spot co^'ering each ear, iind 
part of the forehead and cheek, with a fulvous mark above each eye, 
and another black spot on the rump; the tail was rather long, well 
fringed, and white/' This description, except for the pendidous ears 
might apply well enough to the type of small dog here treated. How 
much of its appearance was due to the taxidermist's etiorts is, how- 
ever, to be considered. It is even possible that it w^as after all only a 
spaniel, wliich, except for its short ears, it seems to resemble. 

What seems to have been a slightly deformed Indian Dog, is de- 
scribed and figured by Duges (18S2) as a Chihuahua Dog (a tenn that 
is used by fanciers for a dw^arf breed, wdth erect ears). From his 
figure of the skull, it is e\^dent that the animal was young. It was 
apparently rather small, had but tlu*ee lower premolars (the first 
lacking), a rather heavy head, and long close-haired taiL The Ijack 
seems to have been unduly arched but the head is represented as 
erect, and the posture quite different from that of a raccoon. The 
color w-as blotched black and white. Tlie ears were cropped, but 
wvTC assumed to ha\^e l)een erect. So far as can be judged from 
Duges's account, this ma.y have been a dog similar to the Techichi. 
He, how ever, supposed it to represent the Alco, 

The confusion of names has been added to by Cope (18S7) who 
examined three skulls of the so called Chihuahua Dog* He found 
a variable reduction in the number of teeth, correlated apparently 
with the loss of hair. The premolars w^ere reduced to § or |, while the 
molars were f, 5, and f respectively. In all, the inner cusp of the 
loweT sectorial was lacking. On accotmt of the reduced number of 




4SG Hl'LI.KTlX: MISEIM OF COMl*AHATlVE ZOOLOCY, 

* 

ninlars, ami fhi^s clutrurtt'i' of tlir .setiorialj Cupi^ rdVrs this breed to 
hiH jreiius nvsofhis (Cope, IS79, ISIfla) hased on the Japanese Lap- 
dt\i;, adding that "the species may h(* ealled Diimfhis gibhns,'^ for 
*' the Chihuahua doj; is tlie Cauis gihhm of Ileruaiulez/* Tlie annual 
to wlii(4i Hrrnaudez appHetl the adjtH^tive '' (j}hrnjsvs\'' liowever, was 
with htth* doul>t a Raeeoon. 

Skrlctaf RvuHiius. — Among a great number of l)ones of Indian dogs 
exatnint*d, rroiii mounds, buriids, or refuse deposits in ^'arious parts of 
America, there occur skulls or fragments of jaws appertaining to a 
wiiolly diftVrent type of dog from tlie hirge varieties just described. 
Tlie remains indicate a snuill Hght-limbed aninial, with slender muzzle 
abruptly narrowetl in front of the tliird premolar. .Uthough the 
surface of the brain-case in adults is roughened for muscular attach- 
ment the sagittal crest does not develop till old age. All the teeth 
are small (upper carnassial 14-10.5 ram* in length), the nasals long, 
and the skull noriaab in that it seems not shortened or broadened in 
anv wav, the teeth not cro^vded. A transverse line at the end of the 
palate falls about through the middle of the second molar. These 
dogs are probabl> the third variety of Hernandez, the Techiclii or 
Small Indian Dog. Several skulls, more or less imperfect, from the 
IMadisonville, Ohio, village site are referred to this breed, though 
their measurements are a very little^ larger than those of more southern 
specimens. They occur here together with bones of the large type of 
Indian Dog, An imperfect cranium (M, ۥ Z. 7,123) collected many 
years ago in MePherson's Cave, Virginia, by Lucien Carr, is apparently 
in every respect similar to a skull of this type from Pecos, N. M., 
obtained by Dr. A. V. Kidder in the course of excavating a village site, 
A similar but slightly smaller, though adult, skull from Pueblo exca- 
vations in the southwest is practically the same, as is also a skull of 
the Papago Indian Dog obtained by the late Dr. Edgar A. Mearns 
at Sonoyta, Sonora, while on the Mexican Boundary Survey. It is 
not fullv adult, tliou;;h of nearlv mature dimensions. What seems to 
be a dog of this type is represented in the Peabody Museum by a 
cranium and hind leg-bones from Labna, Yucatan; the rostrum is 
damaged and the teeth lost except the carnassiak The long slender 
limb -bones are in strong contrast with the short thick bones of the 
Short-nosed Indian Dog. 

Turning now to South America, the Museum has a cranium from 
Surinam, labeled: —Carib Indian Dog. It was received through the 
Boston Society of Natural History from the Wjmnan Collection, and 
was probably collected by Dr. F. \\\ Cragin, some fifty years ago 



ALLEN : DOGS OF TIIK AMIHICAX ABORIGINES, 4S7 

Thoiijili it has arquiiTd tlu^ aclull diTititinn, it is not old, and tlir 
temporal ridj^es have not \et unitod to fomi a civst. A vvvy siiuilur 
sknll fron"i Fn-ni'li Gniaiia is figrin^d hy lilairnillr (184!) uniltT the 
iianu* Cani'ffaniKlarl.^ raiinmnisis, Ijy which he set^nis tn haA (^ inli-nded 
to name the luitix'e liog. 

1 ant indebted to Di\ \V. i\ Farraljee for a i)]iotograp]i, (Plate 5, 
fif;. 2) which is assumed to ilhistrate this d<jy;. It was secured l)y liini 
while studying the Macusi tril>e in Bouthern British Oniana, and 
shows an old dog, and a puppy, aceonipanyirig a ehild of the trihe. 
The largcT dog has a narrn\^' h{ ad, and ereet ears, the tips of which 
have been cropped, prohal>Iy as a propitiation to evil spirits; the l)od\' 
is short in proportion to the lean limbs, the tail (better seen in the 
picture of the puppy) is long, npcan^vlng, and like the l)ody, short- 
haired. Dr. Farrabee writes tliat these dogs **are sniall, yellow and 
whitej or brindle and white, and mav be very much mixed with 
European dogs:" Of their ancestry', howe\'er, there is no e\ idence, 
though the erect ears and sleiidcr proportions favor the supposition 
that they retain a measure of tlieir aboriginal character. The expres- 
sion of the larger dog recalls the ''tristi uspectu'' of Hernandez's 
description of the Techichi, It is not unlikely that the small dogs 
found l)y the Jesuits among the Indians of the southern Antilles and 
parts of (.*olombia and Central America may have been of the breed 
here described. 

Dr. Farrabee writes me further concerning some larger dogs which 
he saw among the Wanoai tribe *'who necnpy the Akarai Mountains, 
northern Brazil to southern Britisli Guiana, Tliis tribe, on the 
Brazil side had ne\er seen white men before iliis visit L Tliev have 
the best ik^gs of all the tribes visited and they take the best care of 
them* These dogs are noted among the tribes a month's journey 
away. They keep the dogs tied on raised platforms and allow^ them 
exercise morning and evening. The dogs are all black and white 
and of good size/' A small photograph of these dogs shows a hound- 
like aspect and drooping ears. They are probably of European ori- 
gin and perhaps tlie same as the dogs mentioned by Bancroft (17G9, 
p. 140) who says : ** The Dogs of Qulana seem to be of a species between 
the Hound and Land-Spaniel: their make is slender, their ears long 
and pendulous, with a blunt nose^ and large mouth: their bodies 
are covered with long shaggy hair, generally of a fallow colour. They 
pursue and start the Game bv the scent," 

1 am indebted to J. Rod way, Esq., of the Museum at Georgetown, 
British Guiana, for a brief note on the hunting-dog of the presentniay 




4ns BILLETIX: MISKIM OF CiJMrAHATlVK ZUULOtJY, 

Indians of that couutrv. Hr consiiliTs tliat it is (jf iin<](nil>te(l Euro- 
piMni oriijin, **has no particular charaeters/' and **(miuKI l>e niatcbrd 
in any lot of inongnls. It is gentTally rather sniuU with a pointed 
muzzle, foxy hjokiiig, aiid k( pt Iiungr\" to prevent laziness." Tin 
" foxy" appearance is somewhat typical of the native breeds of smaller 
Tn(han dogs, a result of the fine muzzle, ample erect ears, and droopinfr 
tail, traits which seem still traceable amon^^ these mongrels of the 
modern (niiana Indians* 

Among a stories of dog-skulls (l>elongiMg to the U* S. N, M.) from 
ancient burials in Pern are two which in their small size and slender 
proportions seem referable to the Techichi. Both arc fully adults 
with a welt-de^ eloped sagittal crest on the interparietal, extending 
forward in the larger sknll on to the parietal suture. As will be seen 
from the talkie of measurements appended these skulls are a very 
little larger, with slightly shorter nasals, as compared with the other 
skullr^ whose dimensions are giA'en. It is possible that this is due to 
some achnixtnre witli the short-nosed breeds. Nevertheless the skulls 
in question are quite different from the latter in their slender and 
narrow outlines, and imshortened tooth-row, 

Xo doubt, did we know the external characters of the dogs wliose 
skulls are here listed, it would be possible to recognize more than 
one breed. Tlius the Ohio individuals are a trifle lai'ger in dimensions 
than those of the Sout Invest and the Peruvian dogs again are a little 
larger. Yet all are clearly of the same general type. 

A comparison of the skulls and measurements of these specimens 
with tliose of the Cania palmtris of Rutimeyer from the Swiss Lake- 
Dwellings of late Neolithic to Bronze times in Europe, reveals a rather 
close correspondence which is probably more than accidental, ^^rid 
may even indicate a derivation from some common Asiatic stock at a 
very early period. The type of small dog of the Swiss Lake-Dwellings 
was one appart^ntly of general distril)ution in southern Europe during 
the Neolithic time, and Woldrich (1886a) has identifie<l it as far north 
as Denmark in the kitchen-middens. It was apparently, on tlie 
average, of wider zygomatic breadth, Imt otherwise its dimensions 
corresponded very closely. This evidence favors the view that a dog 
of this type was one of the earliest to be domesticated and was of wide 
flistribution in an early period of human culture. Remains of a 
larger type of dog, C. infrrmvdius^ are also wide-spread in late Neo- 
lithic or Bronze culture layers of middle Europe, and corresponrl 
broadly to the larger t}T>e of Indian dog, a parallehsm that is sug- 
gestive of the common origin of the large and the small types of dogs 
in Europe and America, probaljly from Asiatic prototypes. 



ALLKN: l)<)<;s OF TlIK AMKHK W AHoKitilNKS. 



4sn 



CnifHiiiL Mrsisiirrlilrrits 


■ 

J i 


1 

F— 


^ 1 




i 


i 

a 

C 


5 
E ^ 

■-Pi • 

•= ^ 

5z 


Z I- 








-4* 




5 w ' 


^ m 

■i. ii 


.2 - 


• 






Alveolus of P to occipital rondyle 




i;j2 


140 


138 


l4-i 

1 


137 


139 ' 


145 




"' *' ** niLHlian edge of 




















|ialatr , 




71 


74 


74.5 


76 


73 


74 


78 




-•Uveolos of i' to orbit _ , . 


67 


61 


63 


64 


ri4 


62 


61 


62 




" ** " " alveolii^! of molar ^ 


80 


74 


77 


/< .0 


77 


76 


76 


SO 




.. r '' ** *' m- . . . 


67 


61 


63 


65 


64.5 


64 


63 I 


65 




" *' />^ *' ''* " ?/^- 


54 


49 


51 


52 


51 


50 


51.5' 


49 




** p2 « « ** y^^l> 


47 


42.5 


46 


47 


46 


45 


45 


43 




- ff^l^i i^ a ^^^ 


17 




14 


16 


15 


14 


16 


16 




Length of upper carnassiaL p^ . . . . 


16.6 


14.5 


14.3 


lo . 


15 


14 


16.3 


16 


16 


3ilediaii length of nasals. 








48 


49 


47 


45 


45 


44 


Width across oecipital condyles 






29 


31 


29 


33 


31 


32 


- — 


** *^ palate at m^ 


52.5 


53 


51 


51 


47 


47 


55 


56 




" ** supraorl)ital proee??Mes 


43 


41 




39 




40 


42 


46 


■m ^ 


" '* zygomata 


' 


S4 


S3 


84 


82 


77 


90 




78 


Lower jaw, alveoli ii to m:^ 








79 


79 








^ — ' 


'* " '' c to niz 




76 




74 


74 5 




' 






" '* " P2 to i}t2 


L 


59 




58 


57 








- — - 


" p^tow,,., 


1 






49 


48.5 






— 




'* " " p4 to nh 




' 




40 


39 










'' '' 7nito}m. 


1 






32 


30 










Length nf tfti _,.,..._ 




IS . 5 




18 


17.5 










S k t^l p 1 :i 1 M eii !^i J r ( ^ tn i ' ri t ^ 




















f'enrar 








J' 
l! 


L 




1 


1 




128 


Tibia , , . , . 


130 



Early Accniiutst. — - Hernaiidt^z disposes of the Techiehi in few words, 
as 1)eiii^ the third sort of dog he knew to be found in ^Mexico, It 
must haA'e become scarce by his time (about 1*")78) as he had not seen 
it himself but describes it thus: — **Catulis simiUs est nostratibus, 
Indis edulis. tristi aspectu, ac caetera \"ulgai'ibus simiUs'' (similar to 
our spaniels, eaten l>y the IncHans, of melancholv \isage, but other- 
wise like the common dogs). J. Jonstonus, writing in lGu7, includes 
in his aecomit of dog's, a transcription of Hernanilez's passage as to 




490 Ht LI.KriX: MISEIM OF CUMPAHA TlVfc: ZUiiLOGV. 

I lie tlinn^ sorts of dogs in ^lexico. ITr adds further that the Iiidiuns 
of Cozinnrl Island ate these rinj;s as the Spaniards do rahhits, Thost^ 
intended for tliis purpone were castrated in order to fatten them. 

Chivigero, the Iiistorian of early ^lexico, Avrote that the Ijreed was 
extinet in his time, due. as he supposes, to the Spaniards' having; pro- 
vided their markets with them in lien of sheep and cattle. 

Possibly thi^ breed of dog is the one inentioned in l)e Soto's relation 
of liis mareh through IHorlda. At one plaee the cacique of the vilhif^e 
* sent him a prese!it including "many conies and partridges. . . .many 
dogs which were as much esteemed as though they had bet*n fat 
sheep/' At another place» " the Christians being seen to go after 
dogs, for their flesh, which the Indians do not eat, they gave thtMii 
three hmichTd of these animals/' Again, at a small Indian village 
called Etoeali, the expedition got "maize, beans, and little dogs, whicli 
were no small relief to the people/' 

As late as ISOn, Barton (1805^ p. 12) who had made special inquirv 
of William Bartram, as to the dogs of the Florida Indians, quotes 
him, that the latter had in addition to the larger dogs, a smaller breed, 
about the size of a fox, whicli probably was of the type inider diseus- 
SI on. 

It is prol)ably this dog, if not also the short-nosed variety^ that 
figures largely in the mytliology of the Mayas of Yucatan. Among 
several representations of the dog in the Mayan codices are seen short- 
nosed and long-nosc^l heads, but whether these really indicate differ- 
ent Ijrceds of dogs or different artists that made them cannot be 
determined. All are shown with erect, soinetinies with cropped ears, 
a tail that is of medium lengthy usually shaggy, and recurved. Black 
patches are conmionly represented on the body, and the eye of the 
dog often centers in a black area, Seler (1890) speaks of its use as a 
sacrificial animal in Yucatan^ sometimes in place of a human being. 
Placed in the grave, the dog carried its master's soul across the ''Clii- 
cunauhapaii'* or nine-fold flowing stream. According to Sahagun, 
some were black and white, others dark red, and there were short- 
haired and long-haired dogs, but he does not state whether the small 
and the large types of (lo-> each had short-haired and long-haired 
varieties. A brief summary of the significance of the dog in the 
rehgious life of the Mayas is given by Tozzer and Allen (1910, p. 359). 



ALLEN: nous OF TlIK AMKUK'AN AHOUK.INKs. 401 



Hare-I.\dia\ Dog. 
I'lato 1, fi};. 2. 

1829.^ Cavis lagopm Richardson, Fauna Boreal i-Amer., 1, i>. 78, pi. 5 (not 

CanU lagopus Liiinc, l7o8, g. e. Alopex). 
J867. Canis dome^Hrm, lagopm Fitziiigor, Sitzb K. ukad. wiss. Wien 56 nt 1 

Canis fnmiHarh mihnlm lagopuaUdch enhach, Ilcgn. anim., pt. I, p. 13. 

Characters.— A small, slender dog. ^\ ith erect ears and bushy tail 
feet broad and ^vell-liaircd. Color wliite with dark patches. 

Z)isfn7.i///o».- Formerly found among the Hare Indians'and other 
tribes that frequented the borders of Great Bear Lake and the barks 
of the Mackenzie River. 

Description.— This seems to ha\'e been a small dog, of the Techichi 
type. Richardson, who ga\e a figure and description of it from first- 
hand acquaintance, characterizes it as shghtly larger than a fox but 
smaller than a coyote, and apparently of ^rather slender proportions 
The head was small with sharp muzzle, erect thickish ears, somewhat 
obhque eyes; the tail bushy and sometimes carried curled forward 
over the right hip, though this does not appear in Richardson's figure; 
foot broad and well-haired. He describes an individual as havin^r the 
face, muzzle, belly, and legs white; a dark patch over the eye, and on 
the back and sides, larger patches of dark blackish grsn' or lead color, 
nuxed with fawn and white. Ears white in front, the backs Yellowish 
gray or fawn; tail white beneath and at the tip. 

Notes.— It seems probable that tliis .small breed was lost in the 
early part of the last century. At all events, writers subsequent to 
Richardson do not seem to liave met with it, and those that mention 
It, seem to ha\e confused it with the Common Indian Dog Thus 
B. R. Ross (1S61) and Macfarlane (1905, p. 700) clearly had in mind 
a different ammal; and a skull sent by the latter to the U. S N M 
as lagopm (from Fort Simpson, Mackenzie River) is a large dog' 
evidently the Common or Larger Indian Dog. Hamilton Smith 
(1840, p. 131) takes his description in part from Richardson and 
mentions a pair of these dogs as then living in the Zoological Societv's 
Gardens at London. Audubon and Bachman likewise are indebted 
to Richardson for their account, though their figure, by J. W. Audu- 
bon, IS said to be from a stuffed specimen, perhaps one of those pre^'i- 



402 hi'llktin: MrsKUM op ttnnvvRATivK zonT.ocn*. • 

oiisly living in tlie Zoological Society's Ganleiis. The (liiiic*nsio!is 
llu y give huwever, seem nitlu^r large. 

Richanlson savs further tViat it was used soleh* in t][v chase untl 
was prohahl\ too siiKill to ser\e as a burden carrier. Its voice was a 
wolf-like tunvK Init at some unusual sight it wouhl uiuke a singular 
attempt at harking, commencing with a peculiar growl and ending 
in a prolonged liowh 

Here mav he mentioned what seems to l>e an unknow n or vanished 
hreeil of tlogs as indicated in the account of Frobisher's voyage to 
Arctic America in 1577. At tlu^ present Frohisher Bay, in south- 
eastern Baffin Land, the expedition found in addition to tlie large 
dogs used for sledging, a smaller l>reed, wluch was apparently used 
onl\^ as food, and allowed the freedom of the skin tents of the Eskiuios. 
The historian of the expedition writes that they '* found since* by 
experience, that the lesser sort of dogges they feede fatte, and keepe 
them as domestieall eat tell in their tents for their eating, and the 
greater sort ser\'e for the use of drawing their sleds.*' At York Sound, 
the same writer relates that on going ashore to examine "certaine 
tents of the countrey people/" they *^ found the people departed, as it 
should seenie, for feare of their coniming. But amongst sundry strange 
things \\'hich in these tents they found, there was rawe and new killed 
flesh of unknowen sorts, with dead carcasses and bones of dogs*' 
(Hakhiyt's Voyages, Ever\Tman's Library, ed, 5, p. 212, 215)* Concern- 
ing this ''lesser sort of dogges/' nothing further seems to be known, 
whether they were a dwarf variety of the Eskimo dog, or as seems 
likely, a small i)reed similar to those of the Hare Indians or of other 
tribes of the mainland. 

FuEGiAN Dog, 

Plate 4, fig, 2. 

Charadrns, — Size smaH, as large as a terrier, muzzle slender, ears 
large, delicate^ and erect, Ijody and liml)s well-proportioned^ shoulders 
higher than rump; tail long, drooping, slightly recurved at the tip 
and w(*ll-f ringed; feet wel)t)ed; color uniform grayish tan, or often 
with patches of black av tan, and areas of white; inside of the mouth 

dark-pigmented. 

Distrihutlop. — Found cliieHy among the ^' Canoe Indians" — ^\ah- 
gans and Alacalufs — of the Fuegian Archipelago, from Tape Horn to 
Beagle Channel, and northwestward, probably at least to the western 
part of Magellan Strait. 



ALLEN : POCS OF THE AMEETCAX A JsnRHMXEs, 493 

DescrlptioHs^.^^ 'Vhe best account of tlie Fuegiaii Dog is thuL givt n 
liy irilerculais (1SR4) of two Yabgun Dogs brought back to France 
by Dr. Hyatles of the Mission scicntiftfiiie au Cap Horn fcxpcfUtioii 
(ie la Romaxche), in 1883. These were ol)tainecl as puppies from 
the Yahgans at Orange Bay ami grew up to be tame and ail'cctionatt* 
dogs. They arc clcsci ibed as small Ivut well -proportion* d, remarkable 
for their large pointed and erect ears, and very sharp slender inuzzles. 
The color-pattern is \ ery \ ariuble, often a unifonn grayish tan recall- 
ing the jackal; again, the body is marbled with extensive black or tan 
areas on a white grouiKb The feet are plainly webbed. The two 
dogs above referred to, were said to measure, the male and female 
respectively: — height at shoulder, 49 and 44 cni.jletigtli from tip of 
nose to root of tail, SO and 72 cm.; length of tail, 26 and 23 cm. 

External Measuremeuts^ — Dechambre (1S91) in a note on these 
same dogs, gives the following dimensions, evidently of a female;- - 



u 
u 
ti 



Scapuloischial length 52 cm. 

Height at shoulder . , .41 

Height at rump . , . . 39 

Height at axilla .....,,__..,,, 25 

Thoracic perimeter , _ ,58 

Distance between ears ...........,.,,.,,., 9 " 

** ** inner corners of eyes 4.5 " 

** •* outer ** « ** ...... 8.5 " 

Breadth of forehead 11 " 

Length of head 22 " 

Interorbital width at outer corner of eye ....,9.5 '* 

The further description by Dechambre supplements that of d'Her- 
culais based on the same individuah He describes its foxdike head 
with pointed muzzle^ broad forehead^ its erect and high-set earSj 
usually directed forward, very mobile; eyes slightly oblique. The 
body is large, limlis slender, the neck short and powerfuK the 
shoulders slightly higher than the rump; tail !)ushy and carried 
high. Pelage with a short under fur, pied black and white, passing 
to slaty at the throat, clouded with tan; over each eyebrow a white 
spot with a few fulvous hairs. The coat has the appearance of a 
domesticated animal in its pattern. 

Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle, in a letter to Hamilton Smith (1840, 
p. 214) descriV)es these dogs of the 'Canoe Indians' as resembling 
" terriers, or rather a mixture of fox, shepherd's dog, and terrier. Al| 




49-i HrLLETlX: Ml SKIM uV (OMPAHATIVE Z(KiKrK;\\ 

thai I exaniinrcl hati i>la(^k rix^fs to tlieir inoutlis, hnt thrre was imu'li 
variety in the enknirs ami drgrees of coarseness of thrir coats* * * ^ 
Many Fiicgiaii dogs are spotted atui not a few lut\*^ Hue sliort liaii\ 
hut all n^sendilea fnx al)out the head. * * * ()iu^ brought from Tierra 
del Ftiego was whitt^ with one hhick spot, and vc^-y iiandsome; his size 
was about that of a terrier, hiscoat short but fiTu\ and his ears extren\ely 
tleheate and hmg, althongli erect;'' tlie nuizzle also is long, the tail 
rough anil dro*»ping. 

Skiifl iiittl Limh-boH(\s\ — in a recent paper. Professor Lonnberg 
(1919) has given whdX appear to be the hrst publislied figures anil 
nieasurenieiits of the hnd)-hones and skull of this dog* Ills speci- 
men was a skeleton obtained by NordenskjtikI in 1S95'-90 during his 
Tierrn <lel F^nego expedition. As this author demcmstrates, the sknll 
is that of a true dog, and sliows no relationship with the native canid, 
Pmiufalupcx lyvuidrs, A comparison of the cranial measurements 
with those y-iven for the Techielii of North and South .Vmerica, shows 
a very close approximation, amounting almost to identity. The 
first lower molar in tlie Fuegian Dog seems smaller, however^ 16.5 
mm. in Lonnberg's specimen against 17,5 to 18,5 mm, in the more 
northern dogs. For better comparison, the following measurements 
of the Fuegian Dog are reproduced from this paper tl-onnberg, 1919, 

p. 11):^ 

Condylo-incisive length 

Length of palate 71.3 

Front of canine to back of m- . 

Length of premolar^ 

Leogtli of upper pn liiiilar-molar series. 
Width of ])alate outsifle w^ ...,,.,.,, 

Zygoma tie width , 

I^^n^tli of nasals mesially , . . . . 

Length of lower nii 

Len{i:th of humeras. . , . . 

I^ngtli of ulna 

Length of femur. ,,,.,. 
Length of tibia . 



i ■■ I 1 I 



w -r <r t §■ 



ii I +mmm-ammwmtt^^'''''^*^ 



141 


mm. 


71.3 


u 


64 


J( 


15.2 


ti 


51 


a 


52.6 


li 


81 


» 


46 


u 


16 . 5 


a 


105 


u 


125 


it 


132 


U 


139 


u 



(\v('^.— The Fuegian Dog is active and strong in proportion to its 
small size; quiet, faithful to its master, anrl able to withstand much 
privation; \ igilant and extremely ^ly. It is capable of barking like 
the European dogs. 

They are of invaluable service to their masters in hunting, particu- 
hirly in the pursuit of otters (Lutra fvliua), which are assiduously 



ALLKX: D(KiS nF THE A^IKUH A\ V Hn HI (ilNKS, 



4in 



sonsht. IntlrfMi l^'itzrtn" wrijtt^ that ** it is wrii ascc^rtaiiicMl thai ilic 
oldest wonirii nf the tribe are saeriiiei'il to tlie (iinnihal api>etites of 
their ctnnitrynu^n rather tlian «h\stroy a sin^lc^ do^. ' Doj^.s/ say tliey 
'tiitcli otters; oUl woiiieii are good for notlllll^^*" They are vigilaTit 
watch -<]oss, bar ki til; furionsly nt a stranger, Tiieir mtiaT} size, and 
consetjuent adaptabihty as eaiioe eoiiipanions, arc nu dciulit tlie ehief 
aiuse for tht ir preferent^e l)y the Canoe Indians of the we^^t Patagonian 
Arehipelaut), over the larjfer dogs found among th(* so-called I'ont 
Indians of tin* mainland and the eastern and irilan<l parts of Tierra 
del Fuego. 

Rt'marh\s\ — Jn the absence of specimens for comparison, it is not 
altogether clear that the Fuegian Dog can l)e satisfactorily distin- 
guished except in minor particulars from the Techiclii or Ateo of Peru 
and Me xico, Molina apparent!} thought it identicaL In general it 
appears closely similar, but perhaps of more slender huild,a buF?hier 
tail with recurved tip, welhpahnated feet and a shaggier coat, though 
Fitzroy speaks of \ ariatiou iji this last character. 

In lus Bibliography of the Fuegian tribes. Cooper (1017, p. ISO) 
has summarized the references to dogs in the literature referring to 
these people. As early as 1557, or perhaps 1553, the Chonos at the 
nortliern end of the Chilian Archipelago^ were credited with having 
dogs, as appears from Goicueta on the authority of Cortes Hojea, 
The first mention of dogs in the Strait of Magellan appears to be 
that of Xarbrough, ^^■lu) in 1670, found the natives of the Elizal>eth 
Islanrls in possession of large mongrel dogs of several colors. He 
compared them to the race of Spanish dogs he had fonnd among the 
Patagonians of Fort Julian, Probably these were not of native stock, 
Twentv-six vears hiter de Gennes saw five or six small doiis among the 
Ahicalnfs of Port Famine. The Manekenkn -met l)y the first Cook 
expedition in 1 769 at Good Success Bay, southeast end of Tierra del 
P^iego, had dogs about two feet high with sharp ears; they all liarked. 
The small dog here described is apparently found among the so-called 
Canoe Indians of the western archipelago, the Yahgans and Alaeahifs, 
the most southerly tribes of men in the workL 

SllOKT-XOSED IXDIAX DOG, 

Plates 6, IL 

1885- Pfichijcyon robu^iu-i^ J. A. Allen, Mt^iii. M, C. Z., 10, 13 pp.^ 3 pis. 
1885. Cmn^ ingae vertagii^ Nehring, Sitzb. Gesellsch. natiirf. freundc Berlin, 
p. 5-13 {not Canwfafin'liarisverlagus 1a nat., 12th vlL, 1760, 1, p. 

57, 




49G BILLETIX: MIHEIM OY ( OMPAHATIVF ZO(iL(WY. 

Charavtcni. — A stoutly liuilt (U)*i\ i\w size of a small terrier, with, 
erect ears, short hea\*y muzzle, high forelu^ad, short Ijody and limbs, 
wel 1 --dexel ope* 1 tail. 

The eolor seems to ha\e been I>laek ami white; sometimes more 
unifonuly hlaek, or yellowish with dark bhjiclies. 

The skeleton is stoutly projwrtioned, the limb-hones short and 
thick, the humerus with a very small or no oleeranal perforation. 
The sagituil erest is ehiefly developed at the occiput. Correlated 
with the slight reduction of the maxillary bones, and the witleiiing 
of the palate, is the fact that the last molar is placed just in advance 
of a transverse Hue through the posterior boundary of the palate. 

Duitribufion, — ^ Skeletal remains of this peculiar small dog have 
been found in Virginia in a superficial cave-deposit, as well as in the 
shell -mounds of San Nicolas Island on the coast of southern California, 
A well-preservefl dried or mummified example was lately discovered 
by IMr, S. J, Guc^rnsey in a burial antedating the Cliff Dwellers, in 
the Marsh Pass region of Arizona; aii<] Hrlss and Stiibel have dis- 
covered its nnnnniified remains in the prehistoric necropolis of 
Ancon, Peru (see Nehring, 18S4b). In the M. C\ 7,, is a humerus 
lacking the epiphyses, of a young specimen from Pecos, New^ Mexico, 
obtained bv Dr. A. V. Kidder. These localities mav be taken as 
limiting the known extent of its distribution. 

Notes, — In 1885, Dr. J, A. Allen described as a new genus and 
species Puchycijon robusiu^^ an extinct type of dog from Ely Cave,^ 
Lee County, Virginia, basing his account upon a pelvis, a femur, a 
tibia, a scapula, and a humenis of which he publishes excellent illustra- 
tions* These bones were obtained in the course of excavating the 
superficial layer of earth on the cave-floor, and though it is not certain 
exactly at what point they were found, no excavations deeper than a 
foot were made. Remains of Indian occupation were numerous, and 
other bones were obtained in the cave. There is nothing to indicate 
great age in the type-specimens (M. C. Z, 7,091); indeetl the bones 
are quite fresh in appearance, only slightly discolored with earth. 
They are chiefly notable for their small size and rather heavy ungrace- 
ful proportions, while the humerus is particularly marked on account 
of its lacking the usual perforation o\ er the middle of the epicondyle. 
This perforation is almost always present in Eurasian dogs, as w^ell as 
in coyotes and wolves. No further light has since been shed on the 
nature of this animal nor have any parts of its skull been found. 

Among the remarkable discoveries made by Mr. S. J. Guernsey in 
the course of archaeological exploration in the Marsh Pass region of 



AU.LN: IKHiS OF THE AMKlill A\ A licJHK.IXKS. 407 

Arizona fur the I%al>oclv Museum, were the de^sicatetl ruiiiaitis ul" 
two dog^ with liuiiuiu bll^ia]^ of an age apparently auiedatiiig the 
culture of the < 'lifT Dwellers. One of these dogs is small, about tlie 
size of a Fox-terrier l)nt more c^ompaetly and heavily built, with a 
shorter liead, erect ears, and longer taib It still shows a l>laek and 
white i>attern, with a narrow loedian white line from nose to fure- 
head, a white eliiii, throat, and bell\\ a white collar, white feet, ami 
tail tip, ^luch of the body is black. In the length of the limb-bom^s 
and peh'is as nearly as can l>e detennined from careful study of the 
dried and mummified specimeu, it corresponds exactly with Pacliy- 
eyon. By making incisions through the dried tissue at the ellmw, it 
was possible to lay bare the oleeranal cavity above the joint where 
the large perforation is usually present. It was found iliat in the 
right humerus a small perforation was present, about 3 mm. in (Uani- 
eter, while in the left humerus there were merely two small pores side 
by side. The aninia! was young, still retaining a milk incisor, and so 
it is likely that had it been as old an individual as the one whence the 

m-- 

tvoe-bones of Paehv€\'on were derived, these foramina would have 
ossified completely, p€*rhaps lea\ingj as in the type-humerus, a shallow 
pit in the posterior side of ihe oleeranal fossa, as an indication of the 
former perforation. So complete is the correspondence of the bones 
of Pachycyon ^^^th those of this prehistoric dog of Arizona that they 
may be unhesitatingly pronounced those of a similar if not identical 
breed of Indian dog. 

Not less interesting is a comparison of the humerus of Pacliycyon 
with a humerus figin'ed by Xehring (ISSib, Plate 118, fig. 4, 4a) from 
a miumnified dog exhumed with human-mummies in the ancient 
necropolis of Ancon, Peru, In measurements, there is practical 
identity as shown in the following table (the measurements of the 
Ancon humerus are taken flirectly from Xehring's figure, of natural 
size) : — 

Pachycyon Ancon 

Greatest length of humerus ,._....,_,_. 97 mm, 97 mm. 

Greatest diameter through head of humerus, 31.5 29.5 

Transverse " ** *^ " « ,..,,, 21 24 

Transverse diameter of distal end of same, .25 25 

Xehring's figure shows substantially the same type of thick stout 
humerus, and as he renuirks, has i.he further peculiarity of lacking 
any trace of perforation of the olecranon fossa. It should be added 
that the humerus, shown in his figure is nevertheless very slightly 



4.[)S HC'LLKTIX: \n HKrM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY, 

more bowiHl than that nf the t>pe of Puclivcvoii, and in his opinion 
the Penivian Dog t(irn*s]>on(hMl t losely to a Kuropean Turnspit or 
Dac'hsbuncl, m hence he vdlh it Canh iugar irrtagus. Tht* fi<jnres of 
the skill! of tlie same specimen hkewise sliow an apparent siniihuity 
in outline and proportions to tliat of the Arizona niununy. 

There seems thus to he no doubt that Pavhi/ri/on rofni,*^fihs* is after 
all c»nly a breed of dog ciiltivated by the Indians of the southern 
parts of North Anieriea and of IVriL It is tlierefore no h)nger to l>e 
thonglit of as a probkinatical mammal of the Pleistocene, 

Amnim tlie doy-bones obtained bv the I^niversitv of California's 
investigations of the Indian shell-monnds on San Nicolas Island, off 
the coast of southern California, are two crania nearly identical in 
nieasureinents with the Marsh Pass specimen tliat appear to repre- 
sent this sani** small, short -nosed dog. They are characterized by 
tlieir liroad brain-eases, spreading zygomata, wide palates, shortened 
rostra, and small teeth. In profile the dorsal outline of the brain* 
ease is gently rounded, not flat. The shortness of the rostrum does 
not amount to real d€*fonnity however, for the lower jaw closes nor- 
mallA into its place and the premolars are not markedly crowded, 
though p^ is turned at an angle of nearly 50° from the axis of the skull 
to adapt its position to the sudden narrowing of the skull at this point, 
Premolars 1 and 2 are normal in position, and there is a short diastema 
between {? an<l the canine. The ossification seems particularly 
heavy, yet thougli old, neither skull has developed a sagittal crest ^ 
except at tlie interjKiTif tal region. In the dried mtmimy from Marsh 
Pass, the shortened nose and ele\ ated forehead give a characteristic 
appearance to the head wliich is evident in these crania as welL Xo 
limb-bones that can l)e assigned to this dog, have appeared among the 
Calif ornian collections, Tn both eninia the opening of the posterior 
nares is narrow, and a transverse line drawn at right angles to the 
cranial axis at the posterior end of the palate falls behind the last 
molar, indicating deviation from the normal condition. 

The following skull-measurements show^ close agreement. One of 
the California n crania (i^lrr) hicks any trace of the alveoli of vi- 
which are partly broken and partly resorbed. The first premolar is 
wanting also. The proportions of the maxilla are, however, practi- 
cally the same in tjoth spefimens. The Ancon specimen is figured 
by Nehring fbS84b) of natural size and the nieasureoients are taken 
from this figure. It too lacks the first upper premolar, and in e^ ery 
respect confonns to the api>ea ranee of the other crania* 



mj-kn: ikh;s of thk \\ii:i{1< \\ AHoRHiivKs. 



4m 



WiKisnrvuwnti^ nC Ihf SkiiU 



a 
it 



u 



a 



+ 4 i ri . p V 



Bid 



4' If « 



Greatest length, occiput to media ii itirisnr 
(alveolus) .., 

Greatest leiipth, edge of fonimcii magnum to 
meiliiio incisor ...,.....,, 

Median incisor to edge of palate ...,,, 

'' orbit (anterior edge) 

" m- (alveolus) 

Canine " m^ ** 

Premolars ^'^ (alveoli) _ _ 

Length of premolar ^ . 

Molars ^^ (alveoli) 

Width of palate out^^ide m^ . . 

Zygomatic \\'idt!i _._.._,. 

Mastoid width 

Width of occipital eon rl vies, . 
Nasals, length _ 






* m * » r F*«.. 



» * • » 



l'i*rij: 

AiLrori 



m 



35 

/J 



16 

16.5 



1 'llSH 



?l;i2 



71 .5 

60 

22 

16 



39 



1 



16,355 



138 



123 



54 
69 
59 
20 

IG 
56 
42 
87 
54 
30 



I 






13S 

121 
68 
54 



17 

56 . 5 

39 

85 

53 

31 

41 



In addition to tlie limb-measurements y;i\'eTi on p, 497, tJir Arizona 
mummy gives the following: — total length from tip r>f nose to tip of 
tail following curve of back, 705 (area); tail about 195; uhia 120 
(circa)-, carpus to end of longest claw 90; ear al)out 60-70 mm. long 
including hair; tail U>5; femur UXi (rirrn); tihirt 11 H (circa)- hind 
foot 122. 

Rrmarh. — Although thi^^ type of tlog seems to ha\e Ijeen wide- 
spread among the aborigines of southern Xorth America and north- 
eastern South America, it appears to have quite disappeared and is 
not clearly identifiable in any of the accounts of the early writers. 
Mr. Guernsey's discovery of a well-preserved mummy in a burial of 
considerable age in Arizona, has confirme<l my previous identification 
of the Virginia bones of Pachycyon witli those of Nehring's short- 
limbed dog-mummy of Ancon. The cranium is characterized by its 
breadth and stoutness, its shortened snout and Iiigh forehead, gently 
convex dorsal profile of the brain-case, and the small teeth (upper 
carnassial 1(>-17 mm.). The Calif ornian crania agree substantially 
in every detail. Probably this is the same dog that Moore (1007, 
p. 423) disco\ered in Indian mounds on Crystal River, west Florida, 
of which Lucas obser\'ed, " the front of cranium of carni\ore and jaws, 



.')tH) BULLErix: MrsEr.M of comparative zoology, 

are from the same animal, the short-faced dog somethhig hke a bull- 
terrier tliat seems to lune been a favorite with the Indians of the 
souihwest". 

Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog. 

Plate 12. 

1885, Canis irigae 7nolossoides Nehringj Sitzb. G^ellsch, iiaturf. freunde 
Berlin, p* 5-13, 

Charaders. — Similar to the Short-nosed Indian Dog but with even 
shorter facial l>ones, an imrlershot lower jaw, broader zygomata and 
posterior narial passage. The increased shortening of the face causes 
a slightly more elevated foreht^ad. The color seems to have been 
\ellowish or whitish, marked or clou<!ed with dark brown, 

DistribtdioiK — This Dog is known only from the Peruvian High- 
lands, where its remains have been found with ancient burials of the 
aborigines at .Vneon and racliacamac, 

SbuU-Characters. — A comparison of six skulls from Peru (loaned by 
the U- S* N. MO with those of the Short-nosed Dog of North America, 
leaves little doubt that the Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog is derived from 
the lattcTj perhaps through some sort of cross-breochng, possibly as 
an occasional result of a particular cross, or through the dominance 
of its peculiarities in cross-bred anhnals* In most respects, the skulls 
of both are essentially alike, but the shortening of the rostral portion 
in the present breed is more pronounced, resulting in an undershot 
lower jaw. Yet the reduction of the maxillaries is not so extreme as to 
cause very great crowding of the premolars as in our Bull-dogs or the 
Pekinese Lap-dogs. Tims in two out of six crania, the third premolar 
is set almost transversely to the long axis of the skull, but in the 
others it retains al)out the usual relation. The second premolar, in 
two cases, is turned inward at more than the usual angle. In only 
one of the six skulls is the first upper premolar missing, and here on the 
left side onlv. 

The opening of the posterior nares is very wide in comparison with 
the common Short-nosed Dug, and the zygomatic arches are broader. 
In none of the six skulls do the temporal ridges unite to form a median 
crest except at the occiput along the interparietal bone. On account 
of the shortening of the facial bones, the forehead is high, T^nth a deep 
and broad groo\e medially. A further result of this shortening i&» 
the greater upward turn of the palate, best seen wlien the crania are 



t. 



ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMhUUAN ABUHKilNKS 



50 I 



on a Hat surface. The palate of the Pug-nosed Dog^ makes an angle 
with the table of about 27° against about 15^ in the case of the longer- 
nosed breed. The same rugose surface of the bruin-case, thu heaviness 
of hone and the thickeiud prontincnns at each side of the posterior 
narial openings, characteristic of the Inca Dog, are seen in this breed 
as welL 

No limb-bones have been obtained that can be referred to this dog, 
but it is likely that thev were short and thick like those of the related 
breed. 

The following table gives dimensions of the sue skulls in the U. S. 
X. !M, and is interesting for comparison with those of the Short-nosed 
Indian Hog, 









U.S.N.M. 






IVIeastirptnf^Tit^s c^P thf^ Skulls 














1 


172,885 


172,883 


172.886 


172,887 


17L\SR4 


170,307 


Occipitorostral length (excluding 










* 




incisors) ...,..,,. , 


124 




138 


138 


142 


145 


Basal length 


104 




121 


125 


119 


125 


Palatal length .,...., 


60 




65 


67 


67.5 


66 


Orbit to tip of premaxiilary ..... 


47 





49 


52 


53 


53 


Upper tooth-row. 


64 












** ** (alveoh) 


60 




68 


61 


69 


69 


Front of canine to back of molar - 














(crowns) 










58 




Front of canine to back of molar ^ 














(alveoli) _ . 


49 


53 


57 


58 


57 


56.5 


Length of premolar* (crown) .... 


16 


16 


15.5 


16.5 


17.5 


16.5 


(alveolus) , . 


15 


15 


14.5 


15 


16 


15 


* " molars^ ^ (crowns) . - . . 


16.5 


16.5 


15.5 


17.5 




17 


« « « (alveoli) 


16.5 


15.5 


14 


15.5 


17 


16.5 


Lower tooth-row (alveoh).. . . . . . 












81 


Zygomatic width 


91 


102 


109 


94 


97 


102 


Breadth of occipital condyles .... 


27 


27 


30 


29 


28 


31.5 



Reinarks. — ^The existence of this breed of aboriginal dogs with 
shortened face and undershot, bull-dog-like jaw% w^as first disco\ ered 
by Reiss and Stiibel in the course of their investigation of the necro- 
polis of Ancon, Peru. Xehring (1885) published an account of their 
discovery and gave the Latin name Canis ingac molossoides to the 



502 HFLLETIN: MI'SKTM of rOMPAHATlVK ZCJiiUMiY. 

hn^i!. At first I nit a siiii^le speoinieii was found ainoujj innncRuis 
other dog remains^ but furtlier search InxHiglit a tVw more to liglit, 
and more recently the A ah -National (nographie Society Kxpetiition 
has re<*oxere<l several skulls, from Huaclio and Pachacanuie, 

The presence of this png-nnsed dog among the ancient Peruvians 
is doiihly interesting, not only in that this variation should have 
ncciHTtd here, apparently (pnte independent of similar cases in the 
Old World, hut in that it shouhl have been preserved, wlu^tht^r through 
accident, or as stipposed, through purposeful selec^tion. Such a 
shortening of the face through the imperfect developnunt of the bones 
of the rostrum is found oc(*asit>nally in otlu r chnnesticated mammals. 
The short-faced Cheshire Hogs and similar l>reeds Furnish like in- 
stances of the selection and preservation of this nuitation, which 
appears to be definitely lieritable. Among undoniesticated species, 
the case of a European Fox is recorded by Donitz (1869) in which the 
rostrum was shortened abnormally ^ producing a bull-dog-like appear- 
ance, witli undershot jaw. The second and third premolars of the 
uppt r jaw were opposite the third and fourth respectively of the lower 
jaw, while the upper canine fitted into a space between the first and 
second lower premolars. Sehniitt (1903) 'agrees with Studer (1901) 
that such cases are due to the retention of emhrvonie conditions but 
consiflers them to be a result of domestication. This, however^ is 
not necessarih' the case, as the above instance shows. The case of a 
'* bnll-dog-headed calf" is recorded by Warren (1910) as having ap- 
peared as a " sport ** \ ariation. 

Xot withstanding the comparati\'ely high cultural devt^lopuient of 
the Tncas, it nia\' be doul)t€xl whether they purposely bred these dogs 
for their pecuharity ni face, Qtiite as likt^ly the anomaly arose, 
perliajjs as a freciuent result of cross-breeding between certain of the 
other canine races, or as a local abnonnalitVj, which as a Mendel ian 
character, freciuently (Toi)pcd out in chance crosses. This may be 
indicated by the apparent rarity of this type of dog in the Ancon 
burials, and by the considerable variation in slight details of the fonn 
of the skull, as if no special type were bred for. 

An interesting anomaly of an opposite nature is w*orth recording in 
this connection, namely that of a Jackal shot by Dr. J. C- Phillips in 
.\rabia (M. C. Z, 15^72) in which the under jaw^ has failed to reach 
its normal length and is overshot by the upper jaw^ The low er canine 
closes behind the upper Instead of anterior to it as in normal cases. 



ali.kn: dogs of the A.MKj{r< an AnnuiciNKs. 50;i 



SUMMAUV. 

Recent ciirt'ful studies nf the teetli incMcate tlijit tlie <lmtustic do^'s 
relationship is \\ith thi- \vul\'e.s rather tlian witlt the f^^ronps of Ciinids 
represented by coyote, jackal, or fox. Tlie ultiinute woh-h ke ancestor 
of the dotr is yet to hv determined. Imt present exidencr fa\r.rs the 
view tliat it was not one of the large circinnljoreal wol\es, but possibly 
a distinct and smaller species, from which both jar^rf a„,l small lireeds 
•of dops have been deri\ed. 

The donjestic dogs of the American abori^niies were quite as truly 
typical dogs as those of Asia, and may be assumed to have reached 
America from that continent, with their hmiian companions. Al- 
though it is possible that the larger dogs may interbreed occasionally 
with wolf or coyote, ttiere is no good reason to suppose that such cross- 
ing has had nuich if any, influence on the original stock. 

Tn a Aery general way, three types of dogs may be distinguished 
among the American aborigines: (1) the large, liroad-mnzzled, p:s- 
kimo Dog, with heavy coat and tail curled forward over the hip; 
(2) a larger and (3) a smaller Indian Dog, from which are probably to 
be derived several distinct local breeds. Of the larger style of dog as 
many as eleven varieties may perhaps be distinguished: nf the sm idler, 
five. 

An interesting iind suggestiA-e parallel is found among preliistoric 
European dogs, of which in late Neolithic and early Bronze periods 
there were a large and a small type — Caniv Inter mr dim and C, 
;)a/w,?fm — corresponding rather closely to the Larger or Common 
Indian Dog and the Small Indian Dog or Techichi. The obvious 
probability is that these two general types of dogs were then widely 
cultivated in Asia, and at a very early period reacheil Europe and 
Amej-ica with the human immigrants. In a similar way the Eskimo 
Dog IS of a type common to northern Asia and Europe, and doubtless 
reached America with the Eskimos, whose arrival, at least in eastern 
America is usually regarded as relativeK recent. 




504 BrLLKTix: miskim or compahativi: ztHJLOuY 



BIRLIOGHAPIIW 

Acconcip L. 

ISSO. Coiitimiazioni' dello studio dei resti fossil! rtnveiiuti iiclla cMvema 
di CueipHari:!. Ordine dei earnivori: famisliii dei Canidi, Atti Soc. 
Tosc. sei. TKit. Pisa, Proc, veib,^ 2, \h 41-42, 
AcostEp J. de. 

1590* liistoria natural y moral de las IndituSj etc. Sevilla, 8vo^ 536 pp. 
and index. 
Allen, J. A. 

ISStj. On an extinct type uf dog from Kly Cave^ Lee Countj^ VirgLuia. 
r^lth a not^] on the age of the Ely Cave by N. S. Shaler. Mem. 
^L C. Z,, 10, 13 pp.j 3 pis, 
Anderson, R, J. 

190L Abnormal dentition in the dog* Irish nat,, 10, p. S9-90. 
Anutschin, D, N, 

188L [Ueber die Hnndcrassen der Steinperiode an den Ufern des Lado- 

gaseesj* 5th .LtxdiiioL congr. Tiflis. (Russian). 
1SS2, IZwei Rassen des Hundes avis dam Torfmoorcn des Ladugasees], 
iloskou. (^Ka^sian), See Areh. authrop., 1882^ 14, p. 333. 
Audubon, J, J,, and Bachman, J. 

1849-54, The quadnipeds of North America, Xew York, 8vo, 3 vols*, 
ill us. 
[Bancroft, EdwardL 

1769. An essay on the natiU'al kistury of Guiana. London. 
Bannister, H. M, 

1869, The Esquimaux dog* Amer. nat., 3, p, 522-530, 
Bartlett, A* D, 

IStOO. Observations on wolveSj jackals, dogSj and foxes. Prt)c. ZooL 
soc. London, p, 46-48. 
Barton, B. S. 

1805, iSoine account of the dilTurent speuies and varieties of native Ameri- 
can, or Indian dogs. Barton's Med. and phys* journ., 1, pt. 2^ p, 3-31. 
Bartram, William, 

1792, Travels through North and Houth Carolina^ Geor^a^ east and 
weist Florida, etc. London, 8vo., ilhis. 
Baudouin, M. 

1910. Le chien en pn'histoire. Bull, Soc. prehist* de France^ 7^ p. 314- 
316, 
Blainville, H. M. H. Ducrotay de, 

184L Osti*ographie ou description iconographique coniparee du squelette 
et du systems dentaire des cinq classes d'animaux vertebras recents et 
foBsUes pour sen ir de base a la zoologie et k la geologic, Mamniiferea, 
Carna.ssjei^j vol. 2. Paris, 4to, illiis. 



ALLKX: DOGS OF Till: AMKUK AX A lu JitK.INKS. oOA 

Blanford, W* T. 

1S77. [PrnfesHor Jeit teles' rt-st 'arches on ^IfHiiestie tl(*^s]; Pnrv., Asiatic 
soe. Bengal, p. 114-117. 
BoLile, Marcellin. 

1889. Les i>redercR5^rurs do iios eanidfe. Compt. rend, Aead. sci. Pari?? 
108, p. 201-203. 
Bourguignat, J. B, 

1S75. Reeherrkes mv les oBsements de Canidae constats en France a 
Petat fossile pendant la |>rriode quarternaire. Anrj. ser. geol., 6, art, 
6, 60 pp,, pL 16-18. 
Brown, Robert* 

1S6S- On the mammahan fa\uu\ nf Greenland. Vvtrv, Zuo]. soe. London, 
p. 330-362. 

1875. The same, reprinted, wiHi rf^rrertions and annotations Ijv the 
autlior. 34 pp. 
Browne, Patrick, 

17Sy. The civil and natural history of Jamaica. London. 4to. 
Burton, L. A. 

1917. Raising wolf dogs. Forest and stream, 87, jj. 44S, 
Catlin, George- 

1841. Letters and notes on the manners, custonij^, and con<lition of the 
North American Indians. 8vo., 2 vols,, illus. 
Children^ J. G. 

1S27. On the Esquimaux dog. ZooL joorn., 3. p. 54-56, pL L 
Colenso, William, 

1S78. Notes, chiefly historical, on the ancient dog of the New Zealanders. 
Trans, and proe. New Zealand iust., 10^ p. 135-155. * 

Cooper, J. M. 

1917. Analytical and critical bibhography of the tribes of Tierra del 
Fuego and adjacent territory. Bull. 63, U. S. bur. Amer. ethnoL 
Cope, E, D. 

1879. On the genera of Felidae and Canidae. Proc. Acad, nat, sci. 
Phila,, p. 168-194. 

1879a. The Japanese Lap Dog (Dysodus pramis). Arnew nat., 13, p. 
655-656. 

1883. On the extinct dogs of North America. Anier, nat., 17, p, 235-249, 
fig, 1-14. 

1887, The pug-dog and the Chihuahua dog. Amer. nat.. 21, p, 1125- 
1126. 

1893. [On a jaw of an Indian dog] in C. B, Moore's Certain sheU heaps of 
the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto unexplored, Amer. nat., 27, 
p. 614, 3 figs. , 

Cope, E, D., and Wortman, J, L. 

1S84. An account of the mammalian fauna of the Postpliocene deposits, 
in the state of Indiana. 14th ann. rcpt. state geoL Indiana, pt. 2, p. 4-62, 
pi. 1-6, (See p. 8, footnote). 



aOO liriJ.ETTX: MFSEUM of rOMPAkATTVE zociLOcv. 

Coues, Elliott* 

1873 The prnirie \vr»If. or eovutr: Caftiis latrans-, Aiiipr. nat,, 7, p. 385- 

3sn. 

lS7(i. Hi'Vt'r?^inii «jf thi* iln^ to tlir frrril state. Forest nml stn^ani, 7, 

p. 2!:i 

Cunningh&m, R. O. 

187L Xotc:^ on the natural luBtdry of the iStrait of Magellan and west 
coast of Patagonia nia(l(* during the A^oyage of H. M. S. * Nas.\aH ' in 
the years \sm, 67. BS. (19, Edinhuroih. Rvn., ilhis. 
Cuvier, F. 

1S08. ()h?servatioMs sur le (*hien des habitans cU: la Nniivelle-HoUandej 
)>remlees; tie quelques reflexions sur les facultes morales des animaux. 
Ann. Mus. d'hif=f , nat. Paris, 11, p, 458-476* 
1810. Ueeherclies sur lea differences d'organisation (lui existent entre le-s 
raees des ehiens doniestiques. Nouv, bu!L des sci. Soc. philoni. Paris, 
2, p. 18.5-187. 
ISIL Recherche!^ sur les caraoteres osteolugique?: fpii distiiiguent les 
prinripales races du ehien douiestiqtie. Ann. JVIus. d'hist. nat. Paris, 
18, p. 333-353, ul 18-20. 
Dechambre, Paul. 

169L Xote sur les chiens de la Terre de Feu. Mission sei. du Cap 

Horn, 1SS2-1883. 7, j), 391-392. 
1894. Race canine. Classification et point:i^e. Mem. Roc. zool. 
France, 7. p. 331-352. 

Donitz, ■ 

Ibiiy. [Ueber eine inoiistrose schadelbilduug cines fuchses aus Sehle- 
Bfeii]. Sitzh. Gas. naturf. freunde Berlin, 1868. ]>. 20-21, 
Duerst, J, U. 

1904. Die tierwelt der ansiedehmgeu am Hchlossberge zu burg an der 
Hpree. Arch, anthrop., new ser., 2, p. 233-294, pL 16-20. 
Duges, Alfredo, ^ 

1882. EI perro de Chihuahua. La naturaleza. 6, p. 14-17, fig. 1-3* 
Eastman, C. R. 

1910, Jlunting-dogs of the Ancients. Anier, mus. jouni.^ 16, ]>. 403- 
408, 6 fips. 
Eaton, G. F. 

1898. The prehistoric fauna of Block Ishmd [R I ], as indicated by its 

ancient shell-heaps, Anier, joiu-n. sci-j ser. 4, 6, p. 137-139, pi 2^ 3. 
1916, The collection of osteological material from Machu Picchu. Mem, 
Conn. aead. arts and sci.j 5, 96 pp., 39 pk., 2 tables, map. 
Eiffe, O. E. 

1909, Kreu^ung von polarhund und Dingo. Zool. beobachter (ZooI» 
garteni. 50, p. 312-313. 
Ermel, Alexander. 

1S.S9. Enui relse mich der ll(jbinsan-Crusoe-InseL Hamburg, 8vo, 
134 pp., 11 pis., map. 



ALLKX: mniS i)V 1HK AMKKICAX AHdUlCilXKS. 5(17 

Filhol, Henri, 

ISiS^J, f)h>viTvaii4»ns relatives imlx ehirris ;ii1u<4s et aux earnassiers fn.s- 
sile?^s'en rappnieliant \v [jIus, Areh. Mns, rriii^t. nat. Lyon. 3* |). 7U-97, 
pi. 5, 
Piseher, J, B, 

1829. Synnj*sis Maininalhuu. StuttgarL 8vf». 
Fitzinger, L* J. 

ISfUh l^ntorsiirlmii^en iiber die al>stairimunp des huinji's. Sit/J). )C. 

akad, \vi?is \\ ieih uiath,-nat. (*L, 64, pt, 1, p. 39ti-4o7. 
1867. Die ini^Qii de^s zahineii hiuides, Sitzli. K, akaiL wiss. \\'irii, 
inatlj.-nal. rL, 66, pt. 1. p. 377^507, ol4"58.5. 77(j-823, 
Gervais, PauL 

1875. Reiiiarqiies avi HLijet du (allien doiiie.^fique, Joiirii. zool.. 4, p. 119* 
Gibbs, George, 8ee Suckley, G., :ind 
Gidley, J. W. 

1913. Preliminary report on a recently fliseovered Pleistocene cave 

deposit near Cumberland. Maryland. Prue. U, 8,*X. il.; 46, ]*. 93- 
102, tig. l-8a. 
Glahn, H. C. 

1784. Om den Gr^nlanflske hvin<t. Xye samhin^. K. Xorske viik-selsk. 
skr, Trondlijemj 1, p. 485-496. 
Gray, J* E. 

1867. On the skull of the Chinese pup:''nosed spaniel or lap-dog. Proc, 

ZooL soc. London, p. 40-43., fig. 1-4. 
1869. Note on the varieties of dnp^s. Ann. map:, nat, hist., ser. 4, 3, 
p. 236-240. 

Guy on, . 

1866. Des aniniaux di.^parus de la Martiidque et de la Guadrl iu]>e depiiis 
notre etablissement dans ees ile.s. Compt, rend, Acad. ,sci. PariR, 63, 
p. 589-597, 
Haminerani A, 

1895, Zui' geseliichte der hunde-rasseri, ZooL garteiij 36, p. 12-17. 
53-59 . 88-92, 1 10-1 17, 147-1 53 . 
Harlan f Richard. 

1825. Fauna Americana; being a description of the nianiiuiferous aui- 
mals inhabiting North America. Philadelphia, Svo. 
Harmon, D. W. 

1820. A joinnial of voyages and travel in the interior of North AnnTica, 
[etc.]. Andover, 8vo, 432 pp. 
Harting, J, E, 

1884. Dogs: ancient and modern. Zoologist, ser. 3^ 8, p. 393-411. 
Heame, SamueL 

1796. A journey from Prince of Wales's Fort, in Hud.soo's Bay^ to the 
northern ocean .... in the j^ears 1769 . . . .-1772. 
Herculais, J. K, d'. 

1884. Les chiens des Fuegiens. Science et naturej Ij sem. 1, p. 137-140/ 

fig' 



Bl LLKTIN: MU8EIM 0¥ rt>AlPAHATIVE ZOOLOGY. 

Hernandez {or Fcruandez)^ Francisco, 

liinL Historiae animalium e( iiiiiiemliiini Novae Hispaiuae. Liber 
iHiieus ID svK traetatiis divi^us, Romo, folioj 96 pp, (in Rccehi ;iml 
LyneeuR, 1(551). 
Hilzheimer, Max. 

1JH)5, Variationen des canidonsebisses mit hcsonderer berucksichti^ting 

de8 liaushMiitles, Zeitsch. iiiorph. u, aiithrop., 9, p. 1-40, pi. 1-5. 
1908. Boitra^ zur kenntnis der nordafrikanischcn schakule nebst 
bemerkungen iiber deren verhiiltiiis zu deu haushunden, insbesondere 
nordafrikimischen iind altiig>Titischen hundcrassen. Zoologica, 20^ 
no. S3. 1 1 1 pp., 4 tablos, 10 pis. 
Hind, H. Y, 

1859. North-west territory. Reports of progress; together with a pn.^ 
liiuinary and general report on the Assiniboiiie and Saskatchewan 
t^xplorin^ expedition, made under Instructions from the Provincial 
Secretary, Canada, Toronto^ 4tOj illus- 
Holland, W. J. ' 

1908, A preliminary account of the Pleistocene faxma discovered in a 
cave opened at Frankstown, Pennsylvania, in April and May, 1907. 
Ann. Carnegie mus., 4j p. 228-233, ph. 57, 58, 

Hollardp , 

1859. Xouvel excrnple de croisement fecond du Canis lupus et dii Cams 
' familiaris. Compt. rend. Acad, sci. Paris, 48j p. 1072-1073. 
Hue, E. 

1906. [On Caiiis le mirei^ a xieolithic dog from Jura]. Bull. Soc. prehist. 
de France. (Not seen). 
Hunter, John. 

1787. Observations tending to shew that the wolf, jackal, and dog, are 

all of the same species. Phil, trans, Roy. soc. London, 77, p, 253-266. 

1789. A supplementary letter on the identity of the species of the dog, 

wolf, and jackal. Phil, trans* Roy, soc. London, 79, pt. 1, p, 160-161. 

Hutton, F. W, 

1898, Note on the ancient Maori dog. Trans, and proc. New Zealand 
in.st., 30| p. 151-155, pi. 15. 
Huxley, T. H, 

1880, On the cranial and dental characters of the Canidae; Proc. 
Zool. soc, London, p. 238-288. 
HyadeSj P, and Deniker, Joseph. 

1891 • Mission scientifique du Cap Horn. 1882-1883, 7. Anthropologie, 
Ethnographic, Pari.Sj 4tOj illus, 
Ihering, Hermann von. 

1913. Le chien domestique des Calchaquis* Revista Mus, de La Plata^ 
20, p. 101-106, 3 figs. 
Jeit teles, L. H, 

1872, Die vorgescMchtUchen alterthumer der stadt Olmtitz und ihrer 



allkn; uuus uf thk amlkican AuuHKaxKs. r^m 

riiigebuiiR. Mittli. Anthrop. gcs. Wicu, 2, j.. 18-32, 53^2. S(3 'U 
130-136, 162-1S2, 211-224, 233-247, 278-288, 1 pi. 
1877. Die stammvater iinserer hiiiKlo-nissen. Wicri. (Sot- ako \reh 
t. mtuTg., 1877, 43, p(. 2, p. 80). 
Jentink, P. A. 

1S97. The dop nf the TeiiKger. NotoR r.cvdon nms., 18, p. 217-220 nl 
4, 5. " 

Keller, Conrad. 

1004. Zur abstumnmiigsgcscliiehte unserer hmide-mssen. Erne abwelir 
Kegcnubcr Hcrrn. Prof. Th. Rf,„1or. Vierteljahrsschr. d. Naturf gcs 
/unch, 48, p. 440^57. " 

Keller, Otto. 

HK)!t. Die untike tionvelt. Leipzig, 8vo, illus. 

1912. Die herkunft clcr curopaisthcii haustierwclt. Vcrli. 8 Int zool - 
koiigr.. p. 356-365. 
Kohler, E, M. 

Kohn, F. G. 

1911. Beitmg ziir kenntnis der limit der naekthiindes. Zool. jahrli 
Anat., 31, p. 427-438, pi. 16. 
Krefft, Gerard. 

^^?K ■ ^u^"^ vertebrated animals of the Lower Murray and Darling 
their habits, economy, and geographical distribution. Trans Phil 
soe. N. S. Wales, 1, p. 1-33. 
Kreyenberg, , 

1910. Chinesischf himderassen and diinesische iagdhtnide. Zool. 
beobachter (Zool. garten), 61, p. 289-292 
Kiihn, Julius. 

1887. Fruchtbarkeit der bastarde von schakal und luuishund. Zool 
garten, 28, p. 161-163. 
Kulagin, Nicolaus. 

1892. .Mittlieilung uber die hunderasse Laika (Eskimohunde) in Russ- 
land. Zool. jahrb. Syst., 6. p. 435^41, pi. 20. 
Kunstler, J., and Chaine, J. 

1906, Anomahe dentau-e du ehien. Proces-verb. s6a noes Soe. sci. phv.s. 
et nat. Bordeaux for 1905-1906, p. 26-27 

Lambe, L. M. 

1907. Note on the occurrence of a supernumerary tooth in a dog.' 
Ottawa nat., 21, p. 2.5-26, fig. 

Landois, Hermann. 

1S83. Ueber ein anatomisches unterscheidungsmerkmal zwischen liaus- 
hand imd wolf. Morph. jahrb,, 9, pt. 1, p. 163-165. 
Langkavel, Bemh. 

^^11' ^Jj'^r I^"gos, Pariah-und uouseelandLsclie hunde. Zool. garten, 



510 m lletin: mi skim uf (OMPAKAinK zoolouy. 

1899. Dogs and savages. Ann. rejit. Rogonts RmithsoH. inst. for 1S9S, 
p. t>r)l-G75 (^trausl. from Intt^ni. arch, ethnogr,, 8^ p, 10i>-149). 
Latasta, Famand. 

1888. La premiere ]>reniulMire du eliieii eat-eiie monophyRiirt* ou rliphy- 
saire? IvC naluralistCj ser. 2, 10^ p. 20-22. 
LeConte, John. 

LS56. XntitH' of Anieriran aiuiuals, formerly known, hut now forgotten 
or lost, Proe, Acad. nat. sei: Phila., 7, p. 8-14. 
Lendenfeld, Robert von. 

ISrSl). Kilder aiis dem ausfralisrhen urwald. IV. Der Dingfi. ZooL 
garten, 30, \k 48—49, tig. 
Leseble, L. 

1890. Les dingOH an ('henil du Tardin ^oologique d'acclimatntion. Rev, 
t^ci. nat. a])pliquces. Bull, mens. soc. nat. d^icclini. de France^ 37, p. 
681-684, 
Lewis, Meriwether, and Clark, William, 

1905, Original journals of the Lewis and Clark ex])edition 1804-1806, 
etc. . . . edited by Reuben G- Tliwaites. 8vo, 7 vols, ill us. 
Livermore, S. T. 

1^77. A historj^ of Block Island, [R. I.] from its disrovery, in 1514, to 
t}ie ]>resent time, 1870. Harffordj Conn. 
Lonnberg, Einar. 

1919, Remarks on some fcJuutfi American Canidae. Arkiv zool., 12^ 
no. 13, 18 pp., 4 fig.^. 
Loomis, F. B., and Young, D. B, 

1912, On the shell heaps of Maine. Araer. journ. sci.j ser. 4^ 34j p. 17- 
42, figs. 
Lord, J* K, 

1866. The naturalist in X'anooiiver Island and British Columl>ia. Lon- 
don. 8vo, 2 vols., ill us. 

Lortet, , and Gaillard, C. 

1909. La faune momihet^ de Fancienne EgJ^3te et recherches anthropo- 
loHiques. Arch. Mus. d'hist. naL Lyon, 10, art. 2, 336 pp,, 22o figs. 
Lucas, F. A, 

1897, A di>g of the aneiunt Pueblos* Science, new ser.^ 5^ p. 544, 
McCoy, Frederick. 

1862. Xote un the ancient and recent natural history of \'ictoria, Ann. 
mag. nat. hist-, ser, 3, 9, j>. 137-150. 
MacCurdy, G, G. 

liJLL The passing of a Connecticut rock shelter. Anier. jtuirn. Bci., 
ser. 4, 38, p 511-522, pL 4. 
MacFarlane, R. 

1005. Notes on inannnals collected rind observed in the northern 
Mackenzie River district ^ Xortliwest Territories of Canada, witli 
renjarks tm explorers and explorations of the Far^orth. Pror. U. S. 
X. M., 28, ]i. 673-764, pi. 30-34. 



ALLEN : DOGS OF THE AMLKIC AN ABUHIUrNEfti, 511 

Manners -Smith, J, 

1002, Wolf Iiyhridi^ in nilgit. Jcuirn. Asiiitie soc. Bengal 70, pt, 2, 
l>, 143-14G. 
Martinoli, C. 

i\i[)s, Algunas observacioues sobrt* las anomalias dcuuirla.*? del perro. 
An. Mils. nac. Ruenop Aires, spr. 3, 9, p. 450-469, tablo. 
Mercetp H. C. 

1S97. An (^x|)lorLUion of aborighiLil .shi^ll heaps revealing traces of raiiiii- 
bnliir^m on York River, Maine. PubL Univ. Penna. philoK, lit* and 
ardi., 6, p. 111-137, fig. 40-44. 
Miller, G. S., Jr. 

1912. Catalogue of the imuiimuls of western KLirupe (Eui'upe exclusive 

of Russia) in the eollectK»n of the British museum. London^ Svo, illus. 

1912a. The nanius of the large wolves of northern and wt^stern Xorth 

America. Smithsonian misc. eoll., 59, no. 15, 5 pp. 
1916. Bones of mammals from Indian sites in Cuba and Santo Domingo. 
Smithsonian misc. colh, 66, no. 12, 10 pp., 1 pi. 
MiUs, W. C. 

l!K)ti Buum prehistoric village, Ohio arch, and hist. i>tibl., 15, p. 44- 
136, 85 text-figs. 
Mivartf St. George. 

18fK). Note on canine dental abnormalities. Prnr. Zool, soe. T^fuidon, 

p. ;376-378, fig. 
1890a. DogSj jackalSj wolves, and f(»xes: A monograph of the Cani<lae, 

London, Svo, illus. 
Mosch, O. 

19(H>. Beitrag zur kenntnis des wf>Ifes. Verb. Scliweiz. naturf. ges. 

8t. GaUen, 89, p. 72-73. 
Molina, J. I. 

1S08. The geographical, natural ami civil liistory of Chile. Middletown, 

Ct., 2 vols., 8vo. 
Moore^ C. B. 

1892-3. Certain shell lieaps of the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto 

unexplored. Amer, nat., 1892, 26, p. 1112-922, pi. 24; 1893, 27, p. 

8-13, 113-117, 605-624, 708-723. 
1894. Certain sand mounds of the 8t. John's River, Florida. Jc»urn, 

Acad. nat. sci, Phihi.j ser. 2, 10, p. ^5-103, illus. 

1896. Additional mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida. Mound 
investigation on the east coast of thirida. Certain Florida coast 
mounds north of the St. Johns River. [Philadelphia: privately printed}, 
4to, 3Q pp,, 2 pis. 

1897, Certain aboriginal mounds of the CJeorgia coa.st. Journ, Acad. 
nat, sci. Pliila,, ser. 2, 11, p. 5-138, lUus. 

1899. Certain aboriginal mounds of the coast of South Carohna, Journ, 
Acad. nat. sei. Phila., ser. 2, 11, p. 146-166. 



512 BtLLKTlX: MISEIM OF lUMPAkATlVK ZOiiLOtiV. 

1907. Cn*^tal liiver revisifpcl Jnurn. Arad. iVAi. ?^ri. Phihu, nor. 2, 13* 
p. 4iHi-425, illus. 

Mortillet, G, de, 

1889. Ia^ chieiK BulL Sue. d'anthrop., ser. 3j 12. p. 425-448. 
Morton, S. G, 

lKy\), [On the antiquity of some raecs of dogs]. Proe. Arad. nat* sci. 

riiila., 5, p. 85-89. 
1851. [On American Iiulian dogsj Proe. Arnd. nat> sci. Phila., 6, p, 
139-140. 
Nathusius, Herinann von, 

1874, Bemt^rkungen iiber die schfidel der Eskimohunde. Die zwcite 
deiit.srlie Nordpolar fahrt in den jahren 1860 in id 1870, 2, p. 175- 
177, 
Nehring, Alfred. 

1882. Uebor einige Canis-schadel mit auffalliger zahnformeL Sitzb, 
Gcs, naturf. freunde Berlin, no. 5, p. 65-68. 

1883. I'eljor einige naehtrngli('h an der stilt te dm SpandautT Bronze- 
fimdes zum vorschein gekommcnc menschlichc nnd tbierisclie reste* 
Zeitschr. ethnol., 15, p. 357-359* 

1884. Ueber eine grosse wolfsahnliche huiKle-raF^pe dor vorzeit (Cani^^ 
Jam. tlecimuinus Neliriiig) nnd ueber ihre abstamniiing, Sitzb. Ges. 
naturf, freiinde Berlin, p. 153-165. 

1884a. Ueber Rassebildung bei den Inca-luuiden ana tlen grabern von 
Anenn. Kosmos (Zeitschr. ges, entw.-lehr.), 16^ p. 94-111, 3 text-figs. 

Ib84b. Mammals. In Reiss and HtilbeFs Peruvian antiqititic^. The 
necropolis of Ancon in Peru, vol. 3, pt. 15, I^ondon and Berlin, folio, 

1885. Ueber rapsenbildtmg bei den Inea-hunden von dem todtenfelde 
bei Ancon in Peru. fcSitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Btnliii^ ]). 5-13. 

]SS5a. I'eber altperuanisehe hundomumien und ueber rassebildiinp; bei 
den sogenannten Inca-hunden, Verb, Berlin, ges, anthrop,, ethn. u. 
urgeseh., p. 518-521, 

1886. Ueber eine neue sendnng mnmifieirter Inca-hunde von Ancon in 
Peru. Sitzb. Ge.s. naturf. freunde Berlin, ]>* 101)- 102. 

1887. Ueber Cumt ruHlans von Java und Lh])uh japoniciis von Nippon. 
8itz. Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, p. 66-69, 

1887a. Ueber die mumie eines langhaarigen Inca-hundes von Ancon 

in Peru. Sitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, p. 139-141. 
lS87b. Zur abstammung der hunde-rassen. Zool. jahrb., 3, p. 51'0S. 

1890, Ueber Cuon alpirnn^ fossilia Nehring, nebst bemerkungen iiber 
c'inige andere fossile Camden. Neues jahrb. min.j pt, 2, p. 34-52, pb 
2. 

Newcombe, C- F. 

1909, Guide t(> the anthropological c-tjlleetion in tlie Provincial Museum, 
Victoria, B. C, 8vo, illus. 
Noack, Th, 

1887. Wolfbastarde, Zool. garten, 28, p. lOG-llL 



ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMKRICAX ARORTOrXEB. oKI 

1907, WiHfc, i^chakale, vtirgcscluclitlichr und ueuzeitUrlic liaushunde, 

Zo(>K anz,, 31, i). n6fh695. 
lUOS. UebtT die abi^tamniung norJmssischer iKiushitride* ZtniK anz., 

33. p. 254-264, 
lyuy. HaustJere der Altai-kalmuckeii. L Huiide uiui kata:eiL Zuol, 

aiiz., 34, p. CS3-695* 
1910. Ostefrikaiii^che hauRhtinde des Xyassagebietes. Zool aiiz, 36, 

p, 337-347, 
Otto, Hugo, 

1909. Ik'obachtuisgt'ii an vcrwilderten huudriL ZuuL hrubaehtur 
(Zool. garten), 50, p. 176-178. 

Oviedo y Valdes, G. F, 

153p5. Historia general y natural de las Iiidias, Islajs y tierra-firiue del 
Mar Oceano. (Reprint, Aladrid, 4 vols, 4to, 1851-55), 
Packard, A. S. 

1S85, Origin of the American varieties of the dog. Amer. nat., 19, 
p. S9<i-901. Zoologist, 1SS5, ser. 3, 9, p. 367-372. 
Paris, FauL 

1910. Un eas dMiybridation entre loiip et chien. BulL Soc. zool. France^ 
35 » p. 58-59. 

Pelzeln^ August von, 

1SS6. Eine stiidie iiber die abstammiing der himderassen. Zool. jahrb,^ 
1, p, 225-240. 
Philippi, R» A. 

1886. Ueber die veranderungen welche der mensch in der faiina Ghile^s 
bewirkt hat. Festschr. Ver. f. naturk. zn Cassel zur oO-jiihr. beste- 
hens, p. 1-20. 
PhiUips, E. C. 

1885. The do^ of sacred Iiistory. Zoologist^ ser. 3, 9^ p. 1-3. 
Pictet, F. J, 

1853. Traite dc paleontologio ou histoire naturelle des animaux fossil es 
consideres dans leurs rapports zoologiques et geologiques. Paris, ed. 2, 
Svo, 4 vols. 
Pietrement, C. A, 

ISSS. L'origine et revolution intellectuelle du chien d^arret. BulL 
Soc. anthrop., ser. 3, 11, p, 320-365. 
Pocock, E* !• 

1900. llybricl dt)g and fox. Zoologist, ser. 4, 4. p. 477-478. 
Putnam, F. W, 

1S96. [Remarks on dog-skulls from Ohio]. In Moore, C. B., 1S96, p. 
26-27. 
Rasse, Baron H, de, 

1879. Les chiens sauvages et la grande pertlrix de La Plata. Bull. Soc. 
acelimatation Paris, ser, 3, 6. p. 389-393. 
Recclii, N, A,, and Lsmceus, J. T. 

165 L Rerum mediearum Novae Hispaniae thesaurus seu phintarum, 



514 BrLLETix: miseim of comparative zoology. 

aiiimalium, iiuiieniUuni mexieaiiorum Histnrin ox Friuieisrf ffrman- 
dez .... (Hjlki ta, etc. Rome, 4to, 
Rengger, J, R. 

1830. Natiirgesehichtc rier sanpethiere von Pnniguay. Basel, Svo* 
Richardson; Jojin, 

1829. Fauna Bnrralwiniericana; or the zoology of the northern partes of 
British America. 1, Quadrupeds, London, 4to. 
RosSp B, R. 

1861. A poinilar treatise on the fur-bearing animals of the Mackenzie 
River district* Can. nat. & geoL, 6, p, 5-36. 

Roaa, J. C. 

1S35* Account of the objects in the several departments of n^itoral 
iiistory, seen and disrnverod during the present expedition. In Ros?^, 
John, Appendix to the 2sarrative of a second voyage in search of a 
north-west passage, etc. London, 4to, illus. 
Riitimeyerj L, 

IStiO. Untersuchung der tierreste aus den pfahlbauten der Schweiz. 
Mitth. Antiquar. ges. Zurich, 13, pt. 2. 

1862. Die Fauna der pfahlbauten der Schwem. Neue denkschr. 
allgem. Sehweiz. ges. nature ., 19, p. 1-248, pL 1-6. 

Saint-Loup, Remy* 

1892. Les ancetres de nos chiens. Le naturaliste, 14, p. 101-102, 3 
text-figs. 
Schiaz, H. R, 

1844. Systematischee verzeichniss aller bis jetzt bekannten saugcthiere 
oder Synopsis Mammahum nach dem Cuvier'schen System. Solo- 
thurn, S\^o. 
Schmerlliig, P. C, 

1833-4. Recherche?^ sur les ossemens fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes 
de la Province de Liege. Liege, 2 vols., atlas. 
Schmitt, F, 

1903, t^eber das postembrj^onale wachstum des schadels verschiedener 
■ hunderassen. Arch, naturg., 69, pt. 1, no. 1, p. 69-134, pi. 4-5, table, 

Seler, E, 

1890- [The dog in ancient Mexico]. Congr. Americanistes, BerUn, 
1888, SPSS. 7, p. 321-324. 
Smith, C. Hamilton, 

1S40. The iiaturahst's library. Mammalia, X. Dogs. Edinburgh, 
16 mo., illus, 
Spegazzini, CarloE. 

1882. Costumbres de los habitantes de la Tierra de Fuego* An. Soc. 
cient, Argentina, 14, p. 159-181. 
[Stockdale, Arthur]. 

1917. The hairless dog. Journ. heredity, 8, p. 519-520, figs. 21, 22. 
Strobel, Pellegrino, 

1880. I^ razze del cane nelle terramarc dell' Emilia. Bull paleont. Itah, 
6, p. 13-25, 46-53, 110-130, 140-154, 169-179. ^ 



-MJ,K\: I)<k;s of TflK AMKHU A\ AHOKlfUXES. 515 

Strobel, Pellegrino and Pigorini, Luigi. 

1804. L('(crn'nuiiveliii>:ilafitUMk-l Pnitiicnsf. Sceondsi rtilazinne. AtJi 
Soi'. H:il. sci. luit. Mihini, 7, ;irt. 2, la'J pp.. plntc. 
Studer, Theophil. 

1.S79. Ui-itnifi ziir kcnntuiss der liun.irnu'en in ik'ii pfiihlhaiikMi. Arch. 

iintljrop,, 12, p. t>7-7S, pi. 2. 
1883. Die thierwelt in tit-ii ijlahlljiiutfii Jes Bielersee's. Milth. Xaturf. 

ges. Bern, for 1SS2, pt. 2, AtihaiuIliinsiMi, p. 17-115, pi. 1-5. 
1SS4. Xachli-an zn iiem aufsat^st- iibur die thierwelt in don pfiililbimten 

dps Bidor!*ee',s. .\Iittli. NatinJ . -.-s. Bern, for 1883, pt. 1 . Ahliaiidlmieen, 

p. 3-2a, pi. 1-0. 

1901. Dio praehistorischeii Iniinlc in ilirer bcziehimg zu den gegenwtirtig 
lebendcn rasseii. Abh. i^rliwoiz. palaontol. rjos., 28, no 1 137 pi> 
9 pis., 18 tex(-%s. 

1904. I'eber den dcutschon sph;iforhund und einiRC kyiiologische fragen. 
Mittli. Xaturf. ges. Bern, for 190;J, [j. 17-55, pi. 1-9. 

1905. Etude sur im nouveau chien pre liis tori que de la Russie. L'an- 
thropologic, 16, p. 269-285, 2 text-figs. 

1906. Ueber eiucn hund iius der palaoUthischen zeit Russlands. Canis 
poutiatini. Zool. anz., 29, p. 24-35, pi. 1-2. 

1908. Schadel cines hundes aus einer prahistorischen wohnstatte der 
hallstattzeit bei karlstein, amstgericht Reichenhall. Mitth. Naturf . ges. 
Bern, for 1907, p. 155-168, 2 pis. 

Suckley, George, and Gibbs, George. 

1860. Report upon the mainmals collected on the Survey. Rept. Expl. 

and surv. railroad from the Mississippi river to the Pacific Ocean, 12, 

Washington, 4to. 
Teit, Jajnes. 

1900. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Mem. Araer. mus. 
nat. hist., 2, p. 163-392, pi. 3. 

1909. The Shuswap. Mem. Amer. mus. nat. hi.st., 4. p. 443-789, pi 
13-14. 

Thorndike, T. W. 

1911. The Indian sled dogs of North America.' Recreation. February. 

p. /4-77, 101-102. 
Tiemann, Pr. 

1865, Meine himdhi. Bastard von einem nackten afrikamschen hunde 
und einer liiesigen wachtelhundiii. ZooL garten, 6, p, 430^-434, 
Toni, Etorre de. 

1897. Sopra un ibrido naturale di Canis famUiaris e C. vulpes. Atti R. 
ist. Veiieto sci. lett, ed arti, ser, 7, 8, p, 912-916. 
Toussaint, H. 

1876, Des rapports qui existent, chez le cliien, entre k nombre des dents 
molaires et les dimensions des os de la face. Compt. rend. Acad, sci, 
Paris, 82, p. 754-756, 



nl(> BVI.LETIN! MrSElM OF rOMl'AHVm'K S^OOLOfiY. 

ToEzer, A. M., anil Allen p G. M, 

1910. Animal figures in the Mayii eodiees. Papers Poab(uly iiius., 4^ 
p, 273-372, pL 1-39. 
Trouessart, E. L. 

191 L I^ loup de 1 Inde {Canis jmllipes Sykes), soiiche ancestrnle du 
chirii dunu>tiqut\ Cuinpt, rend, Acad. sci. Paris, 152, p. 909-913, 2 
figs. 
Tschudi, J, J. von, 

1844-6. rnttTsurhungen iiber die Fauna Peruana, St. Gidlon, 4to^ 
illus. 
Vancouver, George. 

1798- A voyape of disrovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and round the 
worlds etc. Loiukm, 4to, 3 vols., ilhis. 
Vieira, L* 

1894. lOtude comparative du squelctte du chien et du loup, Anrnies sci- 
nat.. 1. p. 109-114. 
Watson, James, 

1909. 'i'he d(jg book. New Yorkj large Svo^ illus, 
Warren, Ernest. 

1910. On a bluuk, liuiiieiS duiker and dog and a bulldog-hoaded calf. 
Ann. Natal muR-, 2, p. 235-252, pi. 10-13^ 3 text-figs. 

White, Taylor. 

1890. On the wild do^ of New Zealand. Trans, and proc. New Zealand 

inst., 22, p. 327-330, 
1892. On the native dog of Ne\\ Zealand. Trans* and proc. New Zea- 
land inst., 24> p. 540-557. 
Wilckens, Martin. 

1885. Uebcrsicht iiber die forschungen auf dem gebiete der palaonto- 
logie der haustiere. 8, Die hundeartigen tiere (Caniden) des Dilu- 
viums. Biol centralbL, 5, p. 597-604, 621-627, 

1886. Uebcrsicht iiber die forschungen auf dem gebiete der paiaontologie 
der haustiere. 9, Die vorgesehichtliclicn und die pfahlbau-hunde. 
Biol centralbl., B, p. 719-729, 751'757, 

WindJe, B, C, A,, and Hiimphres^, J, 

1890- On some cranial and dental characters of the domestic dog. Proc. 
Zooh soc. London, p. 5-29. 
Winaliip, G. P. 

1904. The journey of Coronado, 1640-1542, from the City of Mexico to 
the Grand Canon of the Colorado and the Buffalo Plains of Texas, 
Kansas, and Nebraska as told by himself and his followers. Trans- 
iated and edited with an introduction. New^ York, 12 mo. illus. 
Wissler, Clark, 

1917. The American Indian, An introduction to the anthropology of 
the New^ World. New York, 8vo, illus. 



ALI.KN: DU(iS OF THK AMKHlCAJv' ABOItKIINKS. .517 

Woldrich, J. N. 

1877 rcbcr diu-n .u>uen Imushu,,.? rlcr Bronzezeit (Cam. fumliuris 

Mittli. Antlirop. pes. \\ien, 7, p. 61-85, pi. 1-5 
1879. Ueber Cani,lc.n aus deni Diluvium. Denksrhr. K ;,k-ul wis. 

i;Vien. math.-nat. ,.],, 39, pt. 2, ,>. 97^148, pi. 1-6 " 

1«S2. Beitragc zur gcBchiehte des fesilen lumdes, ,,eb.t bemorkunovn 

uber d e lossbi dung. Mitth. Anthrop. ges, Wien, U, p. S-17. pi. l 

abchen hundes,] Mitth. Anthrop. ges. Wien, 12 p 27-31 

1886^ La descendance des raee« du chien donvestique en Europe 
L homnie, Journ. jIIus. sci. anthi-op., 3, p. 65-68 

'""^^^l" K^k-^r'-'^'w*^^' abstamnumg der europaischeu hunderacen. 
icoc TT u ■/"'• ^''^"' math.-nat. cl, 23. p. 12-16. 
wL^ndrf./^" -irt>elthierfauna des " B6hn.i.chen Massivs'' 

Wolfgramm, Albert. 

1894 Die emwirkung der gefangenschaft auf die gestaltimt. <lcs wolfs- 
schadels. 2ool. jahrb. Svst., 7 p. 773-82'> nl 24-26 
Wyman. JeflFries. "^ . , P- ^^<5 »j., pi. 24-26. 

1868^ An account of some kjoekkenmoeddings, or shell-heaps in Miine 

Zacher, G. i j f- . 

1898. Wie wuide der hund zum haustiere? Xatur, 47, p. 397-399. 



The following text is generated from uncorrected OCR. 



[Begin Page: Page 431] 



Xo. 9. — l)oy.'< of the Jiinrican Aborigines. 



\\\ (iLOVKR M. AILF.X. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction 



AcknoAvlcdgpments 



Origin of tine Domestic Dog 



Origin of American Dogs 



Breeds of American Aboriginal Dog: 



Eskimo Dog 



Plains-Indian Dog 



Sioux Dog 



Long-haired Pueblo Dog 



Larger or Common Indian Dog 



Klamath-lndian Dog 

Short-legged Indian Dog 

Clallam-lndian Dog 

Inca Dog 

Long-haired Inca Dog 

Patagonian Dog 

Mexican Hairless Dog 

Small Indian Dog or Techichi 

Hare-Indian Dog 

Fuegian Dog . 

Short-nosed Indian Dog (Pach 

Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog 
Summary 
Bibliography 
Ex-planation of the Plates 



Page. 

431 

432 

432 

439 

440 

44? 

449 

455 

456 

457 

463 

464 

469 

472 

475 

476 

478 

481 

491 

492 

495 

500 

503 

504 

IXTRODUCTIOX. 

When Columbus, in 1492, made his (lisco'^ery of land in the Western 



Hemisphere, he found it already peopled by a race of men who are 
considered by modern ethnologists to be of Asiatic origin, and probably 
of an anticjuity dating back not many thousands of years. Yet these 
aboriginal peoples were considerably diversified as to appearance, 
language, and customs. In South America, the Incas had domesti- 
cated animals, llamas and alpacas, whose wild progenitors are the last 



[Begin Page: Page 432] 

4oL* UILLKTIX: Ml.sEI'M OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 

remnant of the once diverse phylum of American camels. Tiiere is 
no good evidence, however, that the horse which survived in North 
Ajnerica till late Pleistocene times was ever known to the aborigines 
until its reintroduction by Europeans. Dogs they had, nevertheless, 
universally and in some variety. Yet at this late date it is hardly 
possible to define the various breeds or variations with any exactness 
or to throw nmch light on the question of their ulthnate origin. An 
attempt is made here to gather what information the earlier travellers 
recorded as to the appearance of tile dogs of the American aborigines, 
and so far as may l)e, to characterize the various breeds that can be 
distinguished. 

A bibliography is added giving the more important papers on the 
origin of the dog, and on prehistoric dogs of the Old World, as well as 
jeferences to the aboriginal dogs of America. 



Acknowledgements. 

For the opportunity of studying dog-remains from various parts 
of tine New Worid, I would express mj' obligation to the Museum 
of Comparative Zoology; to Messrs. C. C. Willoughby and S. J. 
Guernsey of the Peabody Museimi; to ]\lr. G. S. Miller, Jr., of the 
U. S. National '^Museum; Prof. F. 13. Loomis of Amherst College; 
Prof. W. K. Moorehead, of Andover Academy; and Messrs. A. L. 
Kroeber and E. W. GifFord of the Museum of Anthropology.' of the 
University of California. 

For interesting photographs of dogs, thanks are gratefully extended 
to Messrs. Ernest Harold Baynes, W. B. Cabot, C. T. Currelly, 
W. C. Farrabee, S. J. Guernsey', the Royal Ontario Museum of Arch- 
aeology, and the American Genetic x\ssociation. 

Origin of the Domestic Dog. 

The problem of discovering the wild ancestor of the Domestic Dog 
has engrossed the attention of naturalists from the time of Buffon to 
the present. Basing their opinion on general external resemblances, 
the early systematists, Guldenstadt and Pallas, favored the Indian 
Jackal as the primitive stock whence the European dogs were derived. 
In this course they have been followed by many later writers, but more 
exact studies (Miller, 1 91 2) show that the teeth of the Jackal may be 



[Begin Page: Page 433] 

AI>LF.X: DOGS OK TIIK AMKHK AN A HOUIGINKS. 43."i 

distinguislu'tl l»y jiiaiiy minor charac'tcrs (siicli as tho l)roaflly con- 
tinuous outer ciuiiuiuni on ///'- and in'^) from tliose of tlie Woif and Dog. 
Gidiey (1 91 8) lias iiiustrated uiore fuiiy some of tine distinguisliing 
tootii-cliaracters of se\erai canids, inciuding fox, woif, and coyote, 
and lias grouped tinem into a key, from wliicli it is seen tinat domestic 
iiogs and woix-es are essentiaiiy aiike in tine cusp-clnaracters and pro- 
portions of tlieir teetin, and ditVer from coyotes and foxes in a\erage 
cliaracters wliicli though slight, are appreciable on direct comparison. 
Miller (1 91 2, p. 31 3) concludes that in a series of dog-skulls "repre- 
senting such different breeds as the pug, fox-terrier, bloodhound, 
mastiff, ancient Egyptian, ancient Pennian, Eskimo (Greenland and 
Alaska) and American Indian, the teeth are strictly of the Avolf type"; 
and this assertion I can fully endorse from a study of these and other 
breeds. '^S'evertheless, though the Wolf and the Domestic Dog are 
closely related, it does not follow that the latter is directly derived 
from the former, though e\en as lately as 1 91 1 , Trouessart has uplield 
the view first put forth by Jeitteles (1 S77), that the Indian Wolf 
(Canis pallipcs) might be the ultimate source of certain breeds of the 
Dog. Studer (1 906) suggests some large Dingo-like type as the lost 
ancestor; while Xoack (1907) supposes that the original stock may 
have been identical with a small Chinese Wolf of which he possessed 
tw'O specimens from Tchili, regarded as like the Dingo in color. Xeh- 
ring (1887) suggests that a small Japanese Wolf {C. japoniciis) is the 
living ancestor of the Japanese Street-dog. The Dingo itself is of 
doubtful origin, and though probably a relatively recent arrival in 



Australia, may have been brought at the time the Continent was first 
peopled by man. Krefft (1866) believes he has identified its "first 
molar tooth . . . with other fossil remains in the l)reccia of the Welling- 
ton caves," while '^IcCoy (1862) has "identified its bones mingled 
with those of recent and extinct animals all in one state of preserva- 
tion in the bone-caverns recently opened beneath the basalt flows at 
Mount ]Macedon." In New Zealand, domestic dog-remains of a 
different breed are found associated with those of the extinct giant 
rails in the kitchen-middens and presumably came with the Maoris 
(Hutton, 1898). 

The older naturalists nuiintained the view that cross fertility was a 
test of specific identity, and recorded many cases in support of the 
contention that the Dog was fertile with Wolf and Jackal, and that 
hence it was of such mixed ancestry. Thus, Hunter (1 787) recorded 
the fertile cross between a male Dog and a female of the Wolf and of 
the Jackal, whence he concluded that all were of one species. A more 



[Begin Page: Page 434] 

4'^i4 hitllktin: miskim ok ( dmi'ahativk zooiaxjv. 

recent investigator, (Kiihn, 1SS7) records tile fertility of Dog-Jackal 
h'^'hrids when crossed inter se or back crossed. In this case a female 
Finnish Bird-<log was hred to a captive Indian Jackal {Cam's aiireu.'i 
indicus), j)roducing three litters of four each. All the young were 
much alike in appearance resembling the Jackal, but were somewhat 



darker in color. One of the hybrids bred to a Siberian Dog produced 
seven young. Two other of the original hybrids were paired together, 
and produced a litter of three \oung after a period of sixty days' 
gestation — the nonnal time for a dog. These young were darker 
than their parents, with a wash of gold, a along the sides and on the 
head, recalling the Jackal's color. Unfortunately no careful study of 
the cranial and dental characters in tlu hybrids was made. 

The crossing of Wolf and Dog has been frequently accomplished in 
captivity (Hunter, 1787, 1789). An instance of the fertile crossing 
of a Siberian Sledge-dog with a female Dingo from Australia is re- 
corded by Eiffe (1 909). The North American Indians and the the 
Eskimo are accredited with tethering female dogs in heat at a distance 
from camps to obtain crosses with Avild wolves, which though usually 
highly Hostile to dogs, will at such times, it is said, hybridize. Ac- 
cording to ("ones (1878) and otiiers, similar methods were used by the 
American Indians of the Phiins to obtain crosses with wild coyotes. 
Yet the evidence is not altogether convincing that such cross-breeding 
was very general, or* that it has modified the natiV'e dogs in anyway. 
It is noteworthy that the American Indian is not given to the domesti- 
cation of Wolf or Coyote puppies as might be expected if either were 
the prototype of his Dogs. Nevertheless Coues (1873) and Packard 
(1 88o) on the ground of general external appearance have held that 
the common Indian Dog of North America was merely a tamed 
Coyote; and their Mew has gained wide credence. It may be con- 
fidently stated, however, from a study of skulls and teeth, that this is 
not at all the case. Packard was perhaps influenced l)y Cope's 
(1883, p. 242) statement that "many of the domesticated dogs have 



been derived "from the Wolf and the Coyote, as found in the Piiocene 
deposits of the Repubiican River formations. The American Indian 
dogs, however, are true domestic dogs in skull-characters, and show 
no evidence of derivation from coyotes. 

Crosses between domestic dogs and foxes have l)een less commonly 
reported, and even these reports seem to lack proper substantiation 
in most cases. B. Ross (1 801 ) explicitly states that the dogs of the 
northern Indians could not be induced to cross with captive foxes. 
A supposed ca.se is given by Toni (1897) of a natural hybrid, but its 
ancestry as in one f)r two other cases, was merely conjectural. 



[Begin Page: Page 435] 

ai.i.kn: dogs ok iiik amkhk an VHOUKMNKS. 435 

While some naturalists have thus souj'^ht to derive the Domestic Dog 
from Wolf, Jackal, Coyote, or Fox, or from a mixture of two or three 
of these, others have maintaine<l that it is quite as well entitled to be 
considered a distinct species with its various artificial breeds. BufYon 
was one of the first to support this view. Pictet (1 858, 1 , p. 203-21 0) 
believed that dog-remains from cave-deposits in Europe probabis' 
represented the wild ancestor of domestic dogs, and to this wild 
species he gave the name Canis famiUaris fosailw. In this he was 
followed by liourguignat (1875) who regarded the Prehistoric Dog as 
a species, related to the Wolf but coexistent with it in a wild state. 
He applied to it the name Canis f cms, and concluded from the relative 



scarcit}- of its remains in the eariier strata of Inuman cuiture, tliat it 
was at first seidom domesticated by tiie eariy cave-men. Remains of 
Piiocene canids from centrai France Inave been suggested by Bouie 
(1 889) as representing tiie progenitors of tine Domestic Dog. 

Aitliougli tiie recent and more exact studies of Miiier (1912, p. 313) 
and Gidiey (1 91 3, p. 99) iiave siiown tliat the Domestic Dog may be 
distinguished by dental characters from Co\ote, Jackal, and Fox, its 
close relationship to the wolves is shown, as they point out, by the 
shorter and narrower heel of the lower carnassial in proportion to the 
length and width of the remaining part, the general bluntness and 
plumpness of the premolar and molar teeth and their cusps, as well 
as by the shorter and blunter canines. Other less constant but 
average distinctions are tabulated by the latter author. A noticeable 
character of the lower tooth-row in Wolf and Dog may also be men- 
tioned, namely, its distinctly outward bend at the junction of the 
molar and premolar series, whereas in the Coyote and the Jackal, the 
axis of the tooth-row is much more nearly a straight line. The 
presence of a minute second posterior cusp in addition to the cingu- 
lum in the fourth lower premolar is characteristic of Jackal and Coyote. 

The relationship of the Domestic Dog ha'^ing thus l)een found to 
be wholly with the Wolf, and not with Jackal, or Coyote, it remains 
for future investigation to show what wolf-like ancestor was its '^-ild 
progenitor. This, however, lies outside the scope of the present 
paper. Yet it may be said that no evidence has hitherto been ad- 
duced that clearly indicates the origin of the Dog from any of the 
large wolves of circumboreal distribution. In general the skull of 
the Dog is at once distinguished from that of the Wolf, apart from its 



usually smaller size, by the higher forehead of the fomier. That this, 
however, is due to greater development of tlie cerebrum through 
domestication has been suggested by Hammeran (1895), notwith- 



[Begin Page: Page 436] 

4,% lu i.i.etin: misktm of ((mrARATivE zoolocy. 

standing: tliat donu'stii-ation in casi' of most animals seems rather to 
have a stnltifyinj; elVect. A more diajinostic eharacter is fonnd in the 
size of the teetli. wliieh e\en in tlie hirgest breeds of dogs are oon- 
siderahly smaller than in the wolves. A fact of probable significance 
is that in wolves as in. the less modified breeds of dogs, c. g., the 
American Indian dogs, the free posterior border of the palate ends 
about on a line passing transversely through the middle of the last 
molar. In the large breeds of European dogs a transverse line at the 
hinder margin of the palate usually falls con.siderably behind the last 
molar, indicating probably that the teeth have retained more nearly 
their original size relations than have the maxillary and other bones. 
A like condition is seen also in dogs in which the teeth are abnormally 
reduced in size, due probably, as in case of the Chinese Chow Dog, to 
a diet of soft foods as rice and fish through many generations. These 
facts tend to indicate that the Dog and the large Wolf are really 
distinct species, and that the wild progenitor of the Dog was a .small 
Wolf of a species distinct from the large wolves of circumboreal dis- 
tribution. It is natural to look to Asia for this unknown ancestor, 
and it would be valuable if the studies of Noack and Nehring as to 



the small wolves of Tchili and Japan might be more fully confirmed. 
Jentink (ISO?) suggests the Wild Dog of Java as a representative of 
the original stock whence the Domestic Dog sprang. 

Attention should here be called to the possible effect of domestica- 
tion in reducing the size anti proportions of the Wolf. Apparently 
the only investigator to compare the skulls of wolves born in captivity 
with those of wihl individuals is Wolfgramm (1894), who states that 
the skulls of the capti'^'O-born wolves are smaller in all proportions, 
broader and higher, with less developed muscle-crests. The snout 
is so shortened that pvi''^ is forced to assume a transverse position, 
the lower premolars are imbricate, while in size the carnassial as well 
as the other teeth are said to be slightly reduced. Wolfgramm con- 
cludes that this is sufficient proof that the Dog is derived from the 
European Wolf, and that its smaller size is a direct result of its do- 
mestication. The facts, however, do not warrant such a conclusion. 
The reduced size of the .skull and the crowding of the teeth in captive- 
bom wohes are probably a result of improper nutrition dining growth 
and lack of exercise under confinement, conditions wholly different 
from the free life of a dog under domestication. The crowding of 
the premolars is quite as abnormal for a dog as for a wolf, and occurs 
through failure of the maxillary bones to attain their proper growth, 
while the teeth themselves attain their size independently. 



[Begin Page: Page 437] 



ALLEN: l)0(;s OK 1 1IK AMKKUAN A H( )UI(;i.\KS. 4'.\7 

While some authors have considered that modern doj,'s are poly- 
phyletic, and would trace the ancestrN- of the larger breeds to wolves 
and of the smaller to foxes (Woldrich. I.SSGa, even suggests the Fen- 
nec!). it seems nn)re reasonable to derive thejn all from a nu-dium- 
sized dog through selective breeding. Nevertheless it is possible to 
divide modern breeds into some four to six groups, based mainly on 
size and minor external characters as erect or lop-ears, drooping or 
curled-up tail, etc. Cuvier (LS08) believed that the French Sheep- 
Hog approached the wild prototype most nearly of all domestic 
breeds, and considered the Australian Dingo as the most primitive 
true dog. The characters considered primitive are chiefly the medium 
size, the erect, wolf-like ears, unshortened snout, drooping and 
moderately haired tail, and low forehead. The ability to bark is 
often considered an acquired trait; and the more primitixc dogs, 
such as the Eskimo, howl like wohes more than they bark. 

Historic evidence as to the ancestry of the Dog does not carry the 
matter far enough. The Egyptians had dogs as far back as the records 
go — certainly four to hve thousand \ears l)efore the Christian era. 
The same is apparenth- true of the Chinese, whose history goes back 
nearly as far. Lortet and Gaillard (1 909) recognize four breeds of 
dogs among the mummified remains from As.siout. Fitzinger (1866) 
has summarized the ancient history of dogs known from the earliest 
writings of Rome, Greece, Assyria, and Eg\pt. Yet it is clear that 
at the dawn of history, the nations of Europe, Asia, and North Africa 
had dogs of several breeds, more or less characteristic of each -people. 
Thus the Greyhound type .seems especially prevalent in Egypt and is 



to this day associated witli tlie de.sert-loving races of Persia and 
nortliern Africa. 

European arcliaeologists Inave made many discoveries of dog-re- 
mains in as.sociation witin bones and implements of preliistoric man. 
particularly in the caves and old Lake-dwellings, of southern Euro{)e. 
Hitherto at least eleven different Latin names have been applied to 
as many supposedly distinct prehistoric dogs of Europe. Anutschin 
(1 881 ) announced the discovery of the first dog-remains to be found in 
Russia. Parts of fourteen dog-skeletons were found in building the 
Ladoga Canal, and represent tvro types which he names respectively 
Canis J'amiliaris palustris ladogcnsis, and C. f. inosfranzcivii. He con- 
siders these to be of the Stone Age. and that the former is closely allied 
to the Siberian and NorthAvest American Sledge-dogs — (Eskimo). 
The latter he thinks very similar to the C. niairis-optiiiiac, a deer- 
hound-like type, from the Bronze Age, or even earlier (Neolithic, 



[Begin Page: Page 438] 

4o8 bulletin: mi skim of rOMI'AKATIVK ZOOLOGY. 

according ui Nehring. ISS;'^). Dog-remains, associated with a human 
skeleton and palaeolithic implements, were described by Studer (1906) 
as Catiin i>outiaiini, and were discovered while digging a street near 
Gute Bologoie in Russia. This was Jis large as a medium-sized Sheep- 
«log and is believed ))y this author to be the fore-runner of C. inter- 
medin. s- of the Bronze Age. which is possibly a hound. 



In the Swiss Lake-dwellings occur skulls of a smaller type of dog 
named by Riithneyer Cdni.s- jjahisiris. a breed characteristic of the 
later Neolithic and the Bronze Ages, in Europe, .5,000 to 7,000 years 
ago. Another Neolithic Dog of small size (skull length, 158 mm.) is 
descril)ed by Hue (lOOfi) from Clairvaux, Jura, as Canis Ic mirei, while 
still another of dwarf proportions, C. niihii, is considered by Studer 
(1906) as a fore-runner of C. palustris. The same author (Studer, 
1901) sees much resemblance between skulls of C. palustris and those 
of Chow and Spitz. Undoubtedly the Chow is a rather ancient type, 
in many wa}s recalling the Eskimo Dog in its erect short ears, 
bi'oad nmzzle, small eyes, bushy mane, and curled-up tail carried 
stiffly over the hip. Measurements of skulls of Chows given by 
Studer are slightly larger than those of C. pnlitfsiri.s. 

No less than four breeds of dogs are recognized by Strobel (1880) in 
human culture layers transitional from the Neolithic to the Bronze 
Age in Emilia, Italy. One is the small C. palustris wide-spread in the 
Stone Age of Europe; the second is C. intermedins, a larger dog sup- 
posed to be a hoimd; the third is the larger C. matris-optimae, re- 
garded by Studer (1 901 ) as of the Collie and Sheep-dog (Wolf-dog) 
type, while the fourth is a Dog smaller than palustris, and believed to 
be of a distinct breed which Strobel names C. spaletti. Remains of 
the first three of these breeds are recognized by Woldrich (1 898) from 
culture layers of middle Neolithic times in caverns of Bohemia. 

From these brief accounts of discoveries of prehistoric dogs it is 
clear that at a very early period of human culture there were at least 



two or three types under domestication in Europe. It need not be 
supposed, as some autliors liave done, tliat tliese types are of iocai 
origin. Europe, as a peninsuia of Asia, probabiy received its dogs as 
well as its human population in part at least from the East. Possibly 
then, as now, certain breeds of dogs were characteristic of different 
invading tribes. 



[Begin Page: Page 439] 

ai-i.kn: dogs of thk amkkk an ah()1 U(;im;s. 4. '19 

Origin" of Amkruan Dogs. 

Wry little attention has been paid to the dogs of the American 
Aborigines. At the present day it is probably too late to find pure- 
bretf examples of most of the local varieties that formerly occurred. 
Barton (I.SOo) was about the only American naturalist to give much 
thought to the matter, but the few notes he collected were taken 
mostly at second-hand and were rather indefinite. Coues. ("ope. and 
Packard, as well as many writers following them, considered that the 
domestic dogs of America must ha\e been derived from the Coyote, 
or from some other indigenous species of Xortii or South America, 
(ope was the only one who made an examination of the teeth. In a 
fragment of a lower jaw from Florida, ("ope (1S93) made particular 
note of the absence of the first premolar and remarked on the large 
size of the metacoipd and the entoconid of the lower carnassial. It 
is true that in a large percentage of American native dogs the first 



premolar is absent from the lower jaw. A similar anomaly is occasion- 
ally seen in wolves and in European dogs, but is rare. It is usually 
considered that the first premolar in dogs is without a milk prede- 
cessor, but though this is often true, it is not always the case. A 
jaw of a very young dog in the Museum collection, shows \ery small 
milk-teeth capping the pennanent first premolars whicli are nearly 
erupted. A similar case is reported by Lataste (1888). The entire 
suppression of the first premolar, particularly in the lower jaw. in 
a large percentage of American dogs, is possibly a retention of the 
usual early condition'^ in which there is no first milk premolar. 

The IDiportant paper of Loomis and Young (1 91 2) and the reports 
of Xehring on dogs from ancient PeruMan burials comprise most of 
the work that has l)een done in the comparative dental and osteologi- 
cal study of American dogs. There are, howeVer, brief notices of the 
discovery of prehistoric dog-remains and early accounts of certain 
native dogs by travellers, the more important 'of which are included 
in the Bibliography (p. 504-517). Miller (1912) seems to have been 
the first to show that the teeth of American aboriginal dogs are those 
of true dogs rather than of coyotes or wolves. This I have verified 
from a considerable mass of material from North America and Peru, 
so that there can be no question but that the domestic dogs of both 
Old and New Worlds are closely related and of common ancestrV. 
It follows that instead of having domesticated various dog- or fox -like 
species of the American continents, the peoples of the New '^'^ orld 



[Begin Page: Page 440] 



440 hii.lktin: miskim ok compauvtivk zoology. 

Jim-it l);i\i' liroiiiilit tlieir iloj'^'s witli tliein, pivsinnalnix t'roin Asia, and 
tiiis pn)l);il)l.\ at a culture sta«i;e prior to the domestication of other 
animals, at least in tile North, since no other domestic animal is com- 
mon to the peoples of hoth hemispheres. The Asiatic orij'^in of Ameri- 
can dojjs has ])re\iously heeii su,i;:.iieste(l liy Mercer (1S07, p. 12()) and 
Wissler [UUT). 

The probability therefore is, that the Domestic l)ot>; originated in 
Asia and was carried hy primitive man both east and west into all 
parts of the inhabited world. That this }nigration began in late 
I'^leistocene times seems highly probable. 

In the Western Hemisplu'^re three types of dogs may in a very 
general way be distinguished: — (1 ) the large Molf-like FIskimo Dog 
of the Arctic countries, strong, powerfully built, Avith broad muzzle, 
erect ears, and large bushy tail curled forward o\er the hip; (2) a 
smaller type. \ arying more or less in size and proportions, with erect 
ears but a drooping tail; and (3) a much smaller type, the size of a 
terrier, heavy of bone, usually with shortened rostrum as seen among 
the tribes of the Southwest or again, apparently more slender both in 
limb and skull as in southern INIexico or parts of South America. 
South of tile Eskimo country, the two latter types of dogs are char- 
acteristic, and seem to haAC occurred together over much of their 
range, so that travellers often mentioned a "wolf-like" and a "fox- 
like " dog among the Indians of both North and South America. 



In this connection, it is interesting to recaii Koliier's (1890) statement 
tliat in eastern Asia, between tine provinces of Gansing and IJssuri, 
tlie (CIninese liave smaii fox-iike dogs, a comparison of wliicli witli tlie 
smaii American dogs wouid be of interest. Tlie smaiier x\merican 
dogs of tlie siender type (Tecliiclii) seem not Aery different from tlie 
Oid Worid ('. paius-fri.f, and maA' be not remoteiy reiated. Tlie more 
lieaviiy buiit smaii dogs Avitli sliortened faces and sliorter, stouter 
iimb-bones, are perliaps derived from tlie more siender type, and 
possibiy owe certain of tlieir pecuiiarities to cross-breeding w'^itln tine 
iarger dogs, tliougli tliis is at present Aviioiiy conjecturai. 

Breeds of Amkkk ax Aboriginal Dogs. 

Wliiie in a very general AvaV it may be said, that excluding the 
Eskimo Dog, the American Indians had domestic dogs of tw:o chief 
types, a larger and a smaller, there Avere apparently sundry local breeds 
of these, probably conforming in distribution Avith the general areas 



[Begin Page: Page 441] 

ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMEKKAN ABOUIOINES. 441 

occiipilMI \)\ the groups of tribes iimongst which they were found. 
In the following pages an attempt is made to (h'fine such of these 
breeds as seem to he indicated l)y tlie fragmentar\ accounts of 
travellers as well as l)y the study of what skeletal remains have been 
available. No doubt the number of breeds recognized is subject to 



revision, for it lias been found difficuit to detennine witii any approacli 
to certainty in some cases, wliat externai and skeietai cliaracters are 
to be associated, and in Inow far certain supposed breeds are mongrel 
or relatively pure. Again, the skeletal characters may frequently fail 
to give any clue to external traits that would l)e distinctive. More- 
over, while the tenii "breed" is applied to these locally distinct forms 
of dogs, it is not assumed that the American nati\es made any con- 
scious effort to change or keep constant the traits of their dogs; 
possibly some of the variations are merely the result of a certain 
mongrel mating, going on quite independent of human intent, so that, 
as in case of the Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog, the variation cropped out 
only occasionally and may or may not have been purposely preser\'^ed. 
Nomenclature. — The bestowal of Latin names upon the different 
breeds of dogs recognized has here been purposely avoided, as it 
seems unwise to extend to such artificial variations the systematic 
recognition accorded natural species and subspecies. Nevertheless, 
Latin names or Greek letters have been used by other writers to indi- 
cate domestic breeds, and such names have been applied in many 
ways: — as trinomials, quadrinomials, or quinquenomials; some- 
times separated from the binomial, Canis familiaris, by a comma or 
the abbreviation " var.," or otherwise used in such a way as to cause 
doubt as to their technical standing in systematic nomenclature. 
Some names of dogs have been erected in a strictly binomial fashion 
and if accorded standing, conflict with other names. Thus Riiti- 
meyer's Canis palustris (1863) of the Lake-dwellings is preoccupied 
by von Meyer's Canis (= Galecynus) palustris (1843). The name 
Canis viexicanus currently used for the Mexican Wolf proves to apply 
to the Mexican Hairless Dog only. Hodgson's Canis laniger (1845) 
for a Thibetan Wolf is preoccupied by Hamilton Smith's Canis laniger 



(1 840) for the Nootka Sound Dog. Other cases might be added. 
The practice of using standard English (or vulgar) names for all arti- 
ficial breeds is therefore to be recommended. With the descriptions 
following, a list of Latin names applied by previous writers is given 
under each breed. 



[Begin Page: Page 442] 

442 ut't.i.ktin: miskim of (()l\/l1'auati\kz<)(")L<)(;y. 

Eskimo Dog. 

rhitr 1. fij--. 1. 

1817. Cants familiaris sibiricits groetdandiciis '^'^'alther, Huiid, p. 27 {fide 
Fitzinger; not Cam's groculamlicu.s Bet-hstein, 1799, q. e. Alopex). 

1820. C.f. var. n. horeali.''^ Desmarcst, Mamin., 1, p. 194. 

1840. Conis bat-eali.s Hamilton Smith, Jardine's Nat. library. Mammalia, 
10, p. 127, pi. 2. 

Characters. — Size large, appearance wolf-like, but with less ohiiciuc 
eyes, less attenuated muzzle, and more elevated forehead; tall usually 
carried curled forwaril over the hip: teeth much smaller than those of 
the Wolf. Pelage thick, with a shorter under fur overlaid with longer 
hair which on the shoulders may be as much as eight inches long; tail 



bushy. ( olor whitish, more or less clouded on the back, with dusky, 
or Aarying to l)lack, or black and white, or rarely tan and white. 

Distribution. — The Eskimo Dog was originally found in Arctic 
America coextensively with the Eskimo tribes from the barrens of 
Alaska to Labrador, chiefly along the coast. In the east it was 
probably at its southern limit on the east coast of Newfoundland, and 
thence ranged northward, accompanying its Eskimo masters, to Smith 
Sound, Greenland. Tn Greenland it formerly was found along the 
west coast southward, with the nati\es, but the present-day sledge- 
dogs of the Danish settlements are probably largely mongrel, through 
interbreeding with dogs introduced from Europe (Brown, 1875); and 
the same is true of those in Alaska and southern Labrador. 

External Measurements. — An Eskimo Dog brought back by Parry, 
on his first voyage, is figured by Children (1827) who gives its dimen- 
sions as follows: — 

Ijcngth, occiput to root of tail 

end of nose 

"of tail (about) 

Total length (therefore about) 

Length of ear 

Eyes to point of nose 

Standing height at shoulder 



These figures do not indicate a very iarge animal. The very thick 
coat, especiaiiy on the shouiders, gives an increased appearance of size 
not weii borne out by skeietai measurements. It should be kept in 
mind, that since the advent of Europeans, much attention has been 



[Begin Page: Page 443] 

am.kn: i)0(;s •)!• iiiK amkkk an ah<)|{|(;inks. 44^^! 

<;;iven to iiu-ivasitig tlic sizi- and strciijitii of tlirsc nortluTii <l(jgs for 
draught purposes. It is likely that the large \volf4ike Eskimo Dogs 
now common in the North, are considerably differcMit from the original 
stock foiuid hy the early Arctic explorers. 

Figures. Cliildren, J. G. Zool. jourii., IS27. 3, i'^l. 1 . IMom rarr>'s first 

voyage. 

Audubon, J. J. and Ba<;lnnan, J. (Quadrupeds of North Aiucriea, 1X48, 3, ])!. 

113. Zoological Gardens, London. 

Smith, C. Hamilton. Jardine's Nat. library. Mammalia, 1840, 10. ])1. 2. 

Prince's Street Gardens, Edinburgh. 

Cranial Characters. — Among the various skulls of so-called Eskimo 
Dogs examined, there is more or less disparity of size. This is no 
doubt an indication of the extensive crossing with European dogs 



that has been carried on for a long period with a A'iew to improving 
the speed and strength for which this dog is usefui. Skuiis from 
eastern Kamtschatka are smaii, others from Aiaska and Aiackenzie 
are of superior size. It is therefore difficult at the outset to determine 
what the original Eskimo Dog of North America was really like. It 
is notable, however, that the teeth, eVen of the largest skulls are not 
much larger than those of medium-sized skulls, while in no case do they 
approach the magnitude of the Wolf's teeth. It would be of the 
utmost interest, in this connection, to compare the teeth of a known 
hybrid between the Eskimo Dog and a Wolf. Yet in spite of the fre- 
quency with which this cross is said to occur, there seem to be few 
skulls available. Windle and Humphreys (1890, p. 9) give the ratios 
of different parts of such a skull to the basicranial axis. 

For lack of a more authentic standard, I have taken as typical of 
the Eskimo Dog, portions of a skull (jSI. C. Z. 1 0,537-1 0,539) ex- 
humed by Dr. Al. P. Porsild from an old village site at Sermermiut, 
west Greenland. Millie not of great size, this skull is notable for its 
broad palate, rather prominent trough-like depression between the 
frontals, and the high strong sagittal crest, yet is the surface of the 
brain-case comparatively smooth. Nearly similar is the skull of an 
Eskimo Dog from Hebron, Labrador, collected in 1897. Its wide 
palate and stout teeth are particularly noticeable as well as its strongly 
developed crests and broad forehead. 



[Begin Page: Page 444] 



444 



bulletin: MISKIM OF COMFAKATIVK ZOOLOGY. 

Nathuslus (1874) reports on ten skulls found near old Eskimo huts 
In Jackson and Sabine Islands, Greenland. The largest of these had a 
basal length of 189 mm., the smallest 175 mm. In skull U. S. N. M. 
83,869 the basal length is 170 mm., the condylobasal length 180 mm., 
which may be the same dimension as the " basal length" of Nathuslus. 

In a series of nine skulls of Eskimo Dogs from Greenland, Baffin 
Land, Labrador, Mackenzie, Alaska, eastern Siberia and Kamt- 
schatka, collected for the most part many years ago, it is notable that 
most are of about the same size as those of the Common Indian Dog. 
One or two from eastern Siberia are the smallest and most slender. 
All are hea'^ y of bone, yet the sagittal crest does not show the strong 
backward overhang seen in the Wolf's skull. The muzzle in most is 
broad, yet this varies. The largest skull of all (U. S. N. M. 8,222) 
collected by Dr. W. H. Dall at Nulato, Alaska, is nearly as long as a 
small Wolf's, yet the teeth do not approach those of a Wolf in size. 
This and other large skulls of Eskimo Dogs, probably are the result of 
crossing with large dogs of European origin. Hearne (1796) speaks 



[Begin Page: Page 445] 



ai.i.f.n: i)Of;s of tiif. amkkk a\ AnouifiivKs. 445 



of the lar'^r English dogs at the Fort on Hudson Hay; Jloss (IS(jl) 
notes the crossing of Eskiino Dogs with imported Pointers; and 
Harmon (KS20) records that hy the early part of the last century, 
large dogs imported froin the Engh'sli settlements of Xewfoundhuid, 
had already been introdueetl in the fur eountries as far west as the 
Rocky Mountains. It seems apparent that the large size of some 
present-day Eskimo Dogs is therefore due to the influence r)f imported 
stock, and that prol»al)l\- the ahorigiiial Eskimo Dog was not a much 
larger animal than the ("ommon Indian Dog. The thick eoat. how- 
ever, often adds much to its apparent size. 

It seems to he somewhat characteristic of the Eskimo Dog that the 
posterior narial opening (interpterygoid fossa) is hroader and shallower, 
less contracted at its rearmost portion, than in dogs of other breeds, 
possibly correlated with their use in hauling and consequent need for 
deeper breathing. In this respect, however, there is some variation; 
yet in certain larger skulls which are presumably of mongrel dogs, the 
more narrowed and deepened fossa is obxious. 

Thorndike (1911), in an interesting article on the Indian sled-dogs 
of North America, doubts if pure-blooded Eskimo or "Husky" Dogs 
are today found in North America except possibly about the Copper- 
mine River. Banks Land and W(jllaston Land. "In general, the 
Eskimo Dog differs from the Indian variety in being more wolfish and 
in having less European strain. His tail is more bushy and he is 
cleaner-legged. His ears are more erect and pointed, while his body 
is larger in size" — this in comparison with the mongrel dogs of the 
northern forest Indians of the present day. 



Origin. — From its evident similarity of appearance to tine Siberian 
Sledge-Dog, it is generally accepted that the two are ofsimilar origin. 
The Siberian Dog seems indeed to differ in little except possibly its 
slightly smaller size. Dogs of the same type are found across northern 
Asia into Lapland. wJience certain authors ha\e concluded that the 
Eskimo Dog was undoubtedly brought from the Old World by the 
Eskimo themsehes, who must already have known how to use them 
in harness. This Mew seems on the whole very proliable. The 
ultimate derivation of the Eskimo Dog and the so-called Spitz Dogs 
in general, is howe\er, still obscure. Some form of Wolf is commonly 
looked to as the remote ancestor of the breed though direct proof is 
not available. Holland (1908, p. 232) has even gone so far as to 
suggest that certain well-preserved jaws discovered in a Pleistocene 
cave-deposit at Frankstown. Pennsylvania, may from their resem- 
blance to those of an Eskimo Dog, ha\e come from a wolf-like ancestor 



[Begin Page: Page 446] 

44(> lULLKTIN: MISI-IM OK ( OMI'AHA TIVK ZOQLOGY. 

of tills hiveil. The associated fauna, lunvevcr, is of a more southern 
character than would be expected as companions of this Arctic dog. 

Of the hirger (logs of the New World, the Eskimo Dog is the only 
one that habitually carries its tail curled forward over the hip. This 
character, striking as it is, does not seem to have been particularly 



studied from the standpoint of heritabiiity, to see if it beliaves as a 
Mendeiian cinaracter wlien contrasted witli a drooping taii. Yet it is a 
liigliiy important trait, and is found not only among tine dogs of similar 
appearance in the north of Asia and Europe, but in other varieties, 
possibly related, and of more southern habitat in those continents. 
The so-called Chow Dog of China, a medium-sized red, or sometimes 
black (Kreyenberg, 1910) dog, with erect earsand powerful shoulders has 
the same sort of tail. .V similar, though slightly smaller dog standing 
50 cm. high at the shoulder is found among the Battaks of Sumatra 
(Studer, 1 901 , p. 31 ). The same curled tail is found in the Pomeranian 
Dogs, that appear in th(» decoration of Greek vases (Keller, 1 909) or as 
figurines of Mycenian times. The fact that the curled tail carried 
over the hip is so widely characteristic of certain breeds of Old World 
dogs, where it seems to have been known from ancient times, implies 
that it originated there and strengthens the view that the Eskimo 
Dog came from Asia with the Eskimo. The contention that " the 
canine of the American aborigine, or Amerind, was simply a tame 
wolf, differing from its wild brother in the qualities that would nat- 
urally follow breeding in the semi-domestication of the savage" and 
that the dog " bred by the Indians in the forest regions, and the 
Eskimos, w'^as always derived from the Gray wolf" (Thorndike, 1911), 
seems only remotely true. There is much evidence, though of a 
somewhat uncertain character, that wild male Wolves will breed with 
female Eskimo Dogs at proper seasons, and the northern Indians are 
said to encourage such occasional crosses. Thorndike states that 
tame wolves are sometimes seen in harness with the dogs in the North. 
Nevertheless, under usual circumstances, those who have lived in 
Arctic countries agree that wohes are highly unfriendly with the dogs, 
and a single wolf is more than a match for several dogs. There seems 



to be no e\idence that Wolf cubs were habitually reared by either 
Eskimo or Indian, which one would expect to be the custom if the 
Eskimo Dog is merely a Wolf, tamed. Hearne (1796) mentions that 
some Indians, on finding a Wolf's den, fondled the little cubs, and 
painted their faces with vermilion, but returned them to the den and 
made no attempt to rear them. He adds (p. 362) that " all the wolves 
in Hudson's Bay are very shy of the human race, yet when sharp set. 



[Begin Page: Page 447] 

ai.lkn: i)()(is ov 11 11 . AMIIK AN ahQKI (;im:s. 447 

tliey i'roqiu'iitly follow llu' Indians Tor scxcrul days, Imt always keep 
at a distance. They are fi;reat enemies to the Indian dogs, and fre- 
<|uently kill and C^at those that are lica\ ily loaded, and cannot keep up 
with the main body."' 

A comparison of available skulls imiicates that those of Eskimo 
Dogs from eastern Labrador and western Greenland are constantly 
smaller than those of eastern wolves, the teeth markedly smaller. 
European investigators (Stnder, 1001; Anutschin, ISSI ; Woldrich, 
1882) have described skulls and other bones of large dogs from deposits 
of the later Stone Age — Neolithic — one or two of which, the so-called 
C. f. iuosfranzcivi, C. f. Jadogcnms, seem to l)e large animals much like 
I'^'^skimo Dogs, and are considered as belonging to the same group. 

Eiffe (1909) records a crossing of the Australian Dingo with an 



Eskimo Dog, in tine Hamburg Zoological Gardens. The Dingo, a 
female, was an unusually pale reddish brown animal ; the dog, a black 
East Siberian Sledge-Dog. The eight pups of this litter were more 
reddish in color than their mother, witii slightly Ijusln- tails, somewhat 
bowed upward. The old Dingo then paired with one of these reddish 
dogs, and produced eight young, five very pale like herself, three 
darker red. The ears of all the young were not at first erect, but 
became so in the course of five months. 

Notes. — The accounts of the early voyagers leave no doubt that 
these large dogs were companions of the Greenlanders and American 
Eskimo before the coming of Europeans. Their use by the natives 
as sledge-animals piakes them of prime importance in the Arctic 
conditions under which they \We. Cranz and Egede, early Danish 
missionaries to Greenland, mention the dog-teams, and the latter 
author gives a crude figure. Scoresby in his Greenland Journal, (1823, 
p. 203) relates finding at Jameson's Land in eastern Greenland, the 
skull of a dog in a small grave, probably that of a child. The Eskimo 
of this part of Greenland must have had very little contact with 
Europeans up to that time. Cranz, in his History of Greenland, 
alludes to this custom of the natives, who believe that by laying the 
head of a dog beside the child's gra'^-e, the animal will show the igno- 
rant babe the way to the Land of Souls, for a dog can find its way 
everywhere. 

Among early accounts of the Eskimo Dogs, several of special inter- 
est are gi'^«en in Hakluyt's Voyages. In The second voyage of 
Master Martin Frobisher, made to the West and Northwest regions, 



in the yeere 1577 (Hakluyt's' Voyages. Everyman's Library ed., 
5, p. 137), it is reiated tliat a ianding party at York Sound examined 



[Begin Page: Page 448] 

44s iui.i.klin: miskim ok iomtalia ii\ k zor»i,()(iV. 

tlu' tlosortfd tt'iits of tilt' Kskimos, " not takinj; an\ tlun<i of tlieirs 
except one (iogge." Tine i)ossessions of tinese j)eople are described, 
ineliidiiifi " also dojjj'^es like unto woolves, but for the }nost part black. 
With other trifles, more to be wondred at for their strangenesse, 
then for any other conunoditie needefull for our use." Again, "they 
frank or keepe certaine dogs not much unlike WolVes, Mhieh they yoke 
togither, as we do oxen & horses, to a sled or traile: and so carry their 
necessaries over the yce and snow from place to place: as the captive, 
whom we ha\e, made perfect signes. And when those dogs are 
not apt for the same use: or when with hunger they are constrained 
for lacke of other victuals, they eate them: so that they are as need- 
full for them in respect of their bignesse, as our oxen are for us." 
At Leicester's Island, in the present Frobisher Hay, a captive Eskimo 
caught one of the Englishmen's dogs and showed how the natives 
trained their animals. In the narrator's words. " Taking in his hand one 
of those countrey bridles, he caught one of our dogges and hampred 
him handsomely therein, as we doe our horses, and with a whip in his 
hand, he taught the dogge to drawe in a sled as we doe horses in a 
coach, setting himselfe thereupon like a guide: so that we might see 
they use dogges for that purpose that we do our horses. . . They drawe 



with dogges in sieads upon tine yce, and remooVe tiieir tents tliere- 
witliaii wlierein tliey dweii in Sommer." Tliis seems to be tine eariiest 
account of Piskimo Dogs in Arctic .Ajnerica by Engiislimen. It is 
interesting to find tliat tine explorers carried a dog with them from 
Europe, showing the possibility at an early date, of contamination 
of the breed with European dogs. John Davis, Avho sailed from 
England in June, 1585, "for the discoverie of the Northwest passage," 
met with Eskimo Dogs in August, in Cumberland Sound. His 
chronicler relates that here "we heard dogs houle on the shoare, 
which we thought had bene volves, and therefore went on shoare to 
kill them. When we came on land the dogges came presently to our 
boat very gently, \et we thought they came to pray upon us, and 
therefore we shot at them, and killed two: and about the necke of 
one of them we found a leatherne colhr, whereupon we thought them 
to be tame dogs. There were twenty dogs like mastives with prickt 
eares and long bush tailes" (Hakluyt's Voyages, Everyman's Library 
ed., 5, p. 289). 

At the present day, it is unusual to see typical Eskimo Dogs south 
of Hamilton Inlet on the Labrador east coast, though many mongrel 
indi\iduals are found about the settlements between there and New- 
foundland. Three centuries ago, however, the natives of the latter 



[Begin Page: Page 449] 



AI.I.KN: noes uy Till, \M| HI, v\ AI{()HI(.I\KS. 44!) 



island hud <l(><;s wlik-h froju their :ij)])aiviii rt-swii bianco to woives, 
may hn\i> i)een of tiie Eskimo breed. For Whithourne, in his "Dis- 
course and Discovery of Newfoundland" (London, 1622) writes that 
the natives of Newfoundland " are a people that, will seeke to revlMi'^e 
any wrongs done unto them or their Woolves, as hath often appeared. 
For they mark tlieir Woolves in the eares with several inarkes. as is 
used herv> in Fnjriand on Sheepe and other beasts, which hath been 
likewise well approvefl. For the Woolves in these parts are not so 
violent and devouring as Woolves are in other Countries." The sam<' 
writer speaks with astonishment of his own mastiff's familiaritv with 
t}>ese tanml " Woohes" (Mercer, 1 897), which it seems reasonable to 
cbnclude were really Eskimo Dogs. 

Of the Eskimo Dog in Greenland, Brown (1868, 1875) considers the 
breed to be practically the same as that of Davis Straits and Kamt- 
schatka. In western or Danish Greenland he found it more or less 
mixed with (logs of European descent and south of Holsteensborg not 
used by the Eskimo, as the sea is not sufficiently frozen over in winter 
for sledging. The same author adds that in 1861 , Prof. Otto Torell 
brought several dogs from Greenland for the use of his expedition in 
Spitzbergen, where on account of the open water thev were found 
useless and set free. Within a few years they were 'said to ha\e 
increased in numbers. 

Plain s-L\DiAX Dog. 

Characters. — Size medium, slightly smaller than the Eskimo Dog- 
ears large, erect; tail drooping or slightly upcurved; coat rather 
rough, usually "ochreous tawny" or "whitish tawnv," or sometimes 



black and gray, mixed with wliite. 

Distribution. — W'estevn Nortii America from Britisln Columl)ia 
soutli perlnaps to tine IMexican Boundary and eastW-ard tlnrougli tlie 
Great Plains Region. 

Notes and Descriptions. — It is apparently to this dog that most of 
Lord's description (1866, 2, p. 222) applies in his Naturahst in Van- 
couver Island and British Coliuubia. So impressed was he bv the 
general similarity of ihese dogs to coyotes, that he behoved the one 
derived from the other, and makes one general description do for 
both, with the addition that in the dog the hair "Ijecomes shorter, 
softer, and more uniform in coloration, although the tail retains its 
bushy appearance." The general color is an "ochreous grev," the 
hairs tipped with black, those of the neck tricolored, having thei.' 



[Begin Page: Page 450] 

450 lUI.I.KIIN: MCSF.IM OF ( OMrAHATf^K ZOOI.fX.V. 

"lower tuo-thirds reildish brown; then a rinjj of wliite, ami a Mack 
tip." This pattern '^ivcs "a most curious speckled look" to the 
bristling neck of an enraged dog. Cones (1873) was ecjually impressed 
by the general resemblance of these dogs of the Plains Indians to 
coyotes and consideretl the two animals essentially- the sajne in struc- 
tural points, though he thought it " unnecessary to compare the skulls." 
Indeed, he accepted it as unquestionable that in everV Indian com- 



munity mongrel dogs are found, shading into coyotes in every degree. 
Sucin crosses lie says, are obtained by picketing female dogs over night 
at proper times, thus allowing them to cross with coyotes. Morton 
(1851) quoting a letter from Dr. Cooper, Fort Duncan, Texas, speaks 
of every ranch ]ia\ing a dog resembling a coyote, " and a bitch to 
which no dog had had access, produced whelps, evidently a cross with 
the Coyote." Wortman, also (in Cope and '^Vortman, 1884, p. 8, foot- 
note) after extended travel in the western United States corroborates 
Coues — but from hearsay evidence, however. He found among the 
Umatillas, Bannocks, Shoshones, Crows, Arrapahoes, and Sioux, 
mongrel dogs, "which to one familiar with the color, physiognomy 
and habits of the coyote, have every appearance of blood relationship," 
if they are not " in many cases, this animal itself in a state of semi- 
domestication." All such evidence, hoAvever, is unsatisfactory, and 
rests on general resemblances in form, color, and characteristics that 
may be common to both animals. A comparison of skulls and teeth 
would perhaps reveal more significant tokens of the true relationship, 
but hitherto nothing has been published as to the cranial characters 
of such animals. Yet, in his much-quoted paper on the origin of the 
American varieties of the dog, Packard (1885) appears to have been 
influenced by Coues's belief, and agrees with him in considering these 
<logs as merely tamed coyotes. In a journey through provincial 
Mexico he was struck by the general resemblance of the native dogs 
to these animals, and again, in 1877, on the upper Missouri took 
special note of the dogs of the Crow Indians, describing them as of 
wolf-like appearance, of the size and color of a coyote — a whitish 
tawny — but less hairy and with less bushy tails. Lord (1866, 2, 
p. 221 ) found a number of dogs with a little tribe of Indians at Sweltza, 



a small lake west of the Cascades, near which the boundary of British 
Columbia passes, "that were hardly In any degree altered from the 
cayote" In exterior appearance. He speaks of their burrowing 
deeply Into the ground to bring forth their young, but this trait Is 
found In dogs as well as In coyotes. From these accounts It Is clear 
that the general appearance and coloration of this dog are strikingly 



[Begin Page: Page 451] 

AI.I.Kx: l)o(js OK rill; a.mkkk an ab(jul(;lxks. 4')1 

like those of one of the coyotes. Hajlllltoll Smith (1 840, p. !.')()) 
refers to the same dog as the " Tl'chlchl of Mexico, or the ( "arrler-dog 
of the Indians," and gives a figure (PI. 4) of the only example he had 
seen, a tawny dog of normal proportions and with cropped ears. He 
confuses It however, with HIchardson's "Carrier-Indian" or Short- 
legged Dog and further complicates his account hy supposing It the 
same as the '^lexlcan Techlchl. 

James Telt (1909) writing of the Thompson Indians of the upper 
Fraser River, British Columbia, also remarks on the general resem- 
blance of their dogs to coyotes, but adds that through Intercrossing 
with dogs Imported by the whites, the breed has become totally- 
extinct. They were good hunters, though poor watch-dogs, and the 
best ones for deer hunting were higllly prized. Such dogs generally 
ran the deer to water, often bringing It to hay In some creek, and keep- 
ing It there till the Indian came up and dl.spatclled It. 



It is regrettable that more thorough comparison of the teeth of these 
dogs could not be made to test any supposed resemblance or relation- 
ship to coyotes. As Gidley (1913) has pointed out, the fourth lower 
premolar of the latter has nonnally two secondary cusps and a cingu- 
lum, that of the dog normally but one secondary cusp, a ready means 
of distinction in addition to other relative characters. It should be 
added that in numerous fragments I have examined from the south- 
west, there is no evidence of coyote influence. 

Referable to this same breed are perhaps the larger dogs mentioned 
by Buckley (Suckley and Gibbs, 1860, p. 1 12) as kept by the Indians 
" about the Dalles of the Columbia," Oregon. These he describes as 
about the size of a foxhound, but much more slender, in color yellow 
or brindled. 

A sunilar tv-pe of dog seems to have been kept by the Indians of 
California. At all CAents, a series of skulls from mounds on the south- 
ern coastal islands are hardly to be distinguished from Xew '^Mexican 
skulls. A skull found in association Avith that of an Indian, washed 
out after a freshet, from a bank at the junction of the Tuolumne and 
San Joaquin Rivers, California, is of the same medium-sized type, 
rather lieaA'y of bone, slender of muzzle, and with feeble sagittal crest, 
mainly on the occiput. 

Skeletal Measurements. — A cranium discovered in the course of 
excavations by Dr. A. V. Kidder at Pecos, Xew Mexico, may be 
attributed to this dog. It is nearly identical in size and proportions 
with several of the skulls from southern California from mounds on 



the i.sland of San Nicolas, kindly loaned me by the Archaeological 



[Begin Page: Page 452] 

452 Kl I.I.KTIN: Ml SKIM ()K ( OM 1' A 1 {A I l\ K y.oi')].OC.\. 

Departuu'iit of the I iiiwrsity ot ("iilitoiniii. Tlu'sc last arv in an 
excellent state of preservation, of niediuiu size, yet of massive ho\u\ 
with roufihened l)rain-case. and sagittal crest developed mainly on 
the interparietal region. The teeth are rather small, the first upper 
premolar lacking in some cases. 

The following table gives the cranial jueasiwcjnents of several of 
these skulls. The first two, from Pecos, N. Mex., differ in that the 
one, a rostrum only, is considerably larger than the other, or any of 
the ("alifornian skulls. Of the latter, there are several from mounds 
on San Nicolas Island, which represent a dog apparently identical 
with that of New Mexico. The last two columns give dimensions of 
two old dogs with much worn teeth; in the larger, indeed, the upper 
molars have been lost and their alveoli partially filled, while the remain- 
ing teeth are mere stumps. The smaller of these two skulls, while 
not very different in the measurements of the tooth-row, has a shorter, 
smaller craniujn. It is very likely a mongrel between this larger dog 
and one of the short-nosed dogs ('Pachycyon'), a relationship further 
indicatetl by its slightly more upturned snout. It is further peculiar in 
lacking the first upper premolars on both sides, w'^hile in the lower jaw 
there are on both sides four molars, the second and third each with 



two roots and the fourth single-rooted like the usual third molar. 
Four molars in the lower jaw is not an miknown feature in the dog. 
Nehring (1 882) found twenty dog skulls out of 650 in which there was 
an extra molar either in both upper or both lower tooth-rows, or in 
only one tooth-row. 

Lucas (1 S97) has given a brief account of the cranium of a large 
dog, evidently domesticated, found in an ancient Pueblo Indian grave 
at Chaves Pass, Arizona, in 1896. Another of similar proportions 
was discovered at San Marcos, Texas, associated with flints, a human 
skeleton, and other bones. The former skull he regards as of a " broad- 
faced type," and describes it as "precisely similar in size and pro- 
portions to the cranium of an Eskimo dog from Cumberland Sound." 
He supposes these to be carrier-dogs, and recalls Clavigero's mention 
of them as "a quadruped of the country of Cibola [New Mexico], 
similar in form to a mastiff, which the Indians employ to carry bur- 
dens." I have not been able to examine these skulls, but they may be 
the same as the larger of the two New Mexico skulls here listed. 



[Begin Page: Page 453] 



ALLKN: l)()(iS OF TIIK A.MKKK AN A BOKKilXKS. 



45:1 



Uses. — These dogs of medium size, were chiefly used by the Indians 
in transportation, secondarily in hunting. In the plains country 



from Saskatchewan to the Mexican Boundary, the travoi'^ was in 
general use. This consisted of two light poles, the smaller ends 
fastened together and resting on the dog's shoulders, the heavier ends 



[Begin Page: Page 454] 

454 lUI.LKTIN: mi skim 01- (OMCAHAinK ZOtiLOGT. 

ke*pt upart Uy a frosspioir and trailin<i hcliind. A loatluT collar served 
to keep tills frame in place for dragj'^ing the goods piled upon it. In 
this way entire villages moved, the dogs dragging the household 
effects. Tlu" contrivance seems not to have been used west of the 
Rocky Mountains. Perhaps the earliest mention of the use of these 
dogs as pack-aninuds is found in Coronado's account of his journey 
in Io40 to l.')42, from the City of Mexico to the Texas plains (see 
translation l)y Winship, G. P., 1904). When some ten days' marcli 
from the i)resent Rio Pecos, Texas, Coroiuido and his followers came to 
Haxa, where the natives were found to ha\e "packs of dogs." In 
moving camp, these Indians started off "with a lot of dogs which 
dragged their possessions." "They travel like the Arabs, with their 
tents and troops of dogs loaded with poles and having Moorish pack 
saddles Avith girths. When the load gets disarranged, the dogs howl, 
calling some one to fix them right." A letter from one of ('oronado's 
men further describes the dogs. "These people," he writes, "have 
dogs like those in this country [Spain], except that they are somewhat 
larger, and they load these dogs like beasts of burden, and make saddles 
for them like our pack saddles, and they fasten them with their leather 



thongs, and these make their backs sore on the withers like pack 
animals .... When they move — for these Indians are not settled in 
one place, since they travel wherever the cows [i. e.. Bison] move, to 
support themselves, these dogs carry their houses, and they have 
the sticks of their houses dragging along tied on to the pack saddles, 
besides the load which they carry on top, and the load may be, accord- 
ing to the dog, from 35 to 50 pounds." Evidently these were the 
carrier-dogs of the Plains Indians, and the method of packing with the 
tent poles used as trawls seems to be here first described. 

As pack-animals, for moving camp in their pursuit of the Bison, 
these dogs were of great service to the Indians of the plains country, 
and every village was provided with troops of them. 

As an article of food, the dog seems to have been somewhat analo- 
gous to the fatted calf. George Catlin (1 841 , 1 , p. 1 4) writing of the 
Upper Missouri Indians, says: "We are invited by the savages to 
feasts of dog's meat, as the most honourable food that can be presented 
to a stranger." 



[Begin Page: Page 455] 



ai.i.kn: i)()(;s of rin. vmkkk W muihk.inks. 455 



Siorx !)()(;. 



Chanictrr.s. — A large wolf-like (1 (>J,'^ ])i()l);il)ly closely related to the 



riains-liidiaii n<ig hut lar<ier and ''^vny rather than tawny in color. 

Di/'^trihiifion. Probably the nortil-central plains area, from the 
Missouri north perhaps to Saskatchewan. 

Notes. — No doubt the carrier-dogs differed .slightly among the 
variou.s tribes of Plains Indians covering the wide stretch of country 
from Northern Mexico to Saskatchewan, so that local breeds of the 
general type could be distinguisheil did we have opportunity to com- 
pare them. Morton (1851), who tried to obtain infonnation from 
frontier officers in the earlier half of the last centiuy, c|uotes a letter 
from H. H. Sibley, a correspomlent in Minnesota, who avers that 
" the Indian Dog differs much in size and appearance among diiferent 
tribes" but that they all have small, sharp, erect ears. He particu- 
larly recalls that "among the Sioux, it is large and gray, resembling 
the Buffalo Wolf." Packard (1SS5) has mentioned "whitish tawny" 
Indian dogs seen in 1877, among the Crows of the upper Missouri. 
Lewis and Clark, on their famous journey, came upon a scaffold 
burial of an Indian squaw'^, near which lay two dog-sleds and the 
carcase of a large dead dog, between Mandan and the Yellowstone. 
These large gray dogs of the Sioux may have been a distinct breed 
from the tawny dog, of the size of a Coyote, and possibly the same as 
certain large dogs seen by Hind (1 859) among the Crees of the Sand 
Hills. Sir John Franklin (in his Journey to the shores of the Polar 
Sea, 1 829, 1 , p. 1 76) briefly mentions the large dogs of the Crees in the 
Saskatchewan country. He adds that in the month of '^Slarch, the 
female wolves "frequently entice the domestic dog from the forts, 
although at other seasons a strong antipathy seemed to subsist between 



them." 

Hamilton Smith (1840) quotes an interesting letter from Prince 
Maximilian of Wied, likening the North American plains dog to a 
wolf, "excepting that the tail is more curved, and the color either 
"absolutely grey like w'^olves" or white, black, and black and white 
spotted. The latter coloring, how-ever, may apply to some other 
breeds than that under consideration. 

Figures probably representing this dog, are showTI in some of the 
plates of Catlin's Indians (1 841 , colored edition, 2) small to be sure, 
but showing the gray coloring, large erect ears, and scimitar-shaped 
tail carried out behind. His Plate 103 in 2 is a spirited drawang 
illustrating a dog-fight in which all the dogs of the party, though 
burdened with their loads "en iravois," are rushing to participate. 



[Begin Page: Page 456] 

45(> Hn.l.KTIN: MIsKIM ()1 COMI'AHATnE /.0('>H)CiY. 

Ta)N(;-h.\ikkd PiKHi.o Doc. 

Charncti rti. — A nuHliinu-si'/od tlof; of sIciKlt-r inuzzle. erect ears, 
and normal bushy tail. Hair lonj:; and dense, pale \ elloAvish, clouded 
with dark hrown on ears and croAvn, whitish beneath on throat, belly, 
and feet. Feet well-haired. Probably this is to be looked upon as a 
local breed of the Plains-Indian Dog, from which it apparently differs 



only in its lonfjer coat. 

Dtftinbiiiioii. — Known only from the Marsh Pass region of Arizona, 
but in former times probably common to the Pueblo tribes of Arizona 
and Xew Mexico. 

Gnnral Arcouni. — One of the remarkable discoveries of Messrs. 
Guernsey and Kidder, while exploring for the Peabody Museum, 
was an excellently preserved specimen of a medium-sized dog associ- 
ated with a human burial. In the arid chmate of Arizona, the 
dog had merely dried, so that the entire animal even to the thick hair 
was nearly intact. It is co\ered with a dense coat of long woolly 
hair, of a pale yellowish color, clouded on the back and head with 
brownish. On the sides of the l)ody, the length of the hair is about 
100 nnn.; on the toes 30 mm. The culture period to which this 
specimen belongs, is believed l)y Mr. Guernsey to antedate that of the 
Cliff DvVellers, and hence must be at k'^ast .several centuries old. 

It seems probable that it was to this long-haired dog that Mendoza, 
a companion of ("oronado, refers in a letter of 1 7 April, 1 540, to tlic 
King of Spain, describing the pueblo of Cibola, then a famous Indian 
site, near the present town of Zuni, Xew Mexico. This letter is trans- 
lated by "Winship (1904, p. 1 r).3) from the Spanish of Pacheco y Car- 
denas, (l)ocumentos de Indias, 2, ]). 'AM')), and contains the following 
pa.ssage: — "In their houses they keep some hairy animals, like the 
large Spanish hounds, which they shear, and they make long colored 
wigs from the hair, like this one which I send to Your Lordship, which 
they wear, and they also put this same stuff into the cloth which they 
make." These "hairy animals, like the large Spanish hounds," 



seem probably, in the light of Mr. Guernsey's discovery, to have been 
the same as th<' dog found at ]Marsh Pass. It is recalled here that 
breeds of long-haired dogs were kept for shearing not only by the 
Inflians of Puget Sound, but by the Chonos of the Taitao Archipelago,, 
Chile, and their hair woven into blankets (see p. 475). There was 
formerly a breed of long-haired white or brown dogs ajnong the 
aboriginal inhabitants of Xew Zeahuid, the product of which was 
similarly used (Colenso, 1878). 



[Begin Page: Page 457] 

AI.LKX; IJOUS OF Till-; A.MKKK A.\ AH(»KI(;I\KS. 457 

ExtcninI Mrd.s-iirniinih. — It is not })()ssil)lt' to remove the skull and 
limb-bones without injurinj,' the nmimny for exhibition purposes. 
A few dimensions, however, follow: — 

Length from nose to root of tail, folhiwiiifr backbone — about 700 nun. 

Lengtii of tail, (broken at tip) slightly over 200 

Hind foot 141 

Femur (approxiniately) 14.5 

Tibia (aplHoxiinately) 143 



Upper jaw, front of canine to back of />m'^ o/.o 



Upper carnassial {pm*) 1 8 



Length of skull from occiput to tip of nose (approximately) . . 195 



Width outside upper canines 31 



" carnassials .") i 



Zygomatic width — about 95 



Lower jaw, frrjnt of canine to back of ini 68.5 



I " '/>4 49 



" pnii to puiA 35 



Lengtii of lower carnassial 21 



l>AKt;KR OR ("OMMOX IxDiAX Do(;. 



Plates 7, 8. 



1817. Cards familiaris americanus canadensis Walther, Hund, p. 43. 



1 829. Cards familiar is var. c. canadensis Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Amer., 1 , 



p. 80 (not Canis lupus canadensis Blainville 1 841 , which is Canis iycaon 

Schreber) . 

1 834-6. Canis canafiensis Reichenbach, Regn. anim., pt. 1 , p. 46. fig. ,564. 

Canis famiiiari.'^ orthotu'^ canadensis Reichenbach, Xaturg. raubth., 

p. 146, fig. 564. 

1867. Canis domesticus boreaiis iuparius Fitzinger, Sitzb. K. akad. Wi.ss. Wien, 

56, pt. 1 , p. 409 (not C. f. orthotus iuparius Reichenbach, Regno anim., 

pt. 1. ]). 13, fig. 131; not Canis domesticus iuparius Fitzinger, Sitzb. 

K. akad. wiss. Wien, 1 866, 54, pt. 1 , p. 406; 1 867, 56, pt. 1 , p. 396. 
1881 . Canis iatrans dotnoMicus Langdon, Journ. Cine. soc. nat. hist., 3, 

p. 299 (not Canis fnmiiiaris domesticus Linne, 1766). 

Characters. — This was probabiy eioseiV reiated to the Piains-lndian 
Dog, but seems to have been usuaiiy soiid biack or biack and white 
in patches instead of resembling the Coyote in coior. The skuii has, 
when aduit, a knife-iike sagittal crest, a high forehead, and is rather 
slender. Limbs mucli longer than in the Short-legged Indian Dog 



[Begin Page: Page 458] 



4oS HI I.I.KTIN : MISKIM OF (OMI'AU.VrnK ZO()LOC;Y. 



\i't slightly inferior to those of a (ire\ iiouiul. The first lower pre- 
molar was frequently Avanting. 

Diftfributioti. — Dogs of this general type, agreeing fairly well in size 
and proportions were found among the forest Indians from Alaska 
soutiiAvard to Florida and the Greater Antilles, and westward to the 
edge of the plains in the east central States. The more northern dogs 
seem to average a little larger than those from the south, but in the 
absence of more exact knowledge seem best referred to this type. No 
doubt in the far Northwest there was more or less mixture with the 
Eskimo Dog. Probably too, local strains of this general t.y'pe of dog 
could be distinguished, did we know their external characteristics, 
but the skulls and teeth seem remarkably similar over a wide area. 

Skeletal rnitaiua. — Cope (1893) was the first to describe the jaw of 
this dog from a specimen collected by Moore from a shell-mound on 
St. John's River, Florida. He was struck by the fact that the first 
lower premolar was missing and appeared not to have developed. 
The strong development of the entoconid of the carnassial, he also 
noticed. Moore, in the course of various explorations in Florida and 
Georgia disco\ered many remains of dogs, apparently of this type. 
In a large mound on Ossabaw Island, Georgia, he (1897) found several 
interments of human and dog-skeletons, the latter always buried sepa- 
rately and entire, showing that the dogs had not been used as food. 
Other dog-skeletons of a similar sort were found by Moore (1 899) in 
aboriginal mounds on the South Carolina coast. Several of the 
skulls collected by him are in the Peabody Museum, where I have 
had the privilege of studying them. Putnam (1896) considered them 



the same as those of the larger INIadisonville dogs. More recently 
the M. C. Z. has received from Prof. Carlos de la Torre, two frag- 
mentary skulls of dogs associated with pre-Columbian burials in Cuba. 
These skulls seem to be essentially similar as far as can be judged. 
Miller (1 91 6) has reported a lower jaw of a dog from an Indian site 
in Cuba. 

Three crania in excellent condition, from the ]\ladisonville, Ohio, 
site agree in their somewhat slender proportions, with narrow palate 
and rostrum. A strong but thin bony crest is developed along the 
midline of the brain-case, and there is a noticeable inflation of the 
region just back of the supraorbital processes. The first premolar 
is absent in both cranium and jaw of one specimen. Two crania from 
a shell-heap at La Moine, Maine, similarly lack the first premolar. 
One of these latter is a much larger skull than any of those from 
Madisonville, which mav indicate .some variation in the local breeds. 



[Begin Page: Page 459] 



ALLEN: DOtiS IF I'HK AMKKK AN AHOUK'^INKS. 



4.")!) 



yet the general type seems to be the same. Hardly distinguishable 
from the Maine specimens in any way is a skull from Peel River, 
Yukon, (U. S. N. M. 0,219) collected about 1S60 by Kennicott and 
representing probably the connnon Indian Dog of that region. 



Of seven lower jaws from Maine shell-heaps, all but one lack the 
first premolar, and the same tooth is lacking in a ramus from Madison- 
Ville. It seems to be missing in the greater portion of lower jaws of 
this dog. The following measurements show the lengths of different 
parts of the tooth-row taken at the alveolar borders, because the 
teeth themselves are frequently lost. 



[Begin Page: Page 460] 



460 



BULLKTIX: MISKIM OF ( OMI' AKAIIN K ZOOLOGY. 

Skeletal Mrn.s-uroiieuh-. — The first of the Calf Island jaws al)ove, is 
accompanied l)\' parts of the skeleton of the same animal. The limb- 
bones of this skeleton and those of several dogs from MadisonA-ille, 
Ohio, measure: 

Notes and Descriptions. — On accoimt of the finding of cranial 
fragments that appear to represent this animal, in aboriginal burials 
in Cuba, it is assumed that this is the dog mentioned by the first 
discoverers under Columbus. Oviedo (1535) writing of the aboriginal 
dogs in Haiti shortly after the discovery, declared that they were no 
longer to be found there in 1 535, as all had been killed for food during 
a time of famine. These dogs he descril)ed as of all the colors found 
among the dogs of Spain, some uniformly colored, others marked with 



blackish and white, or reddish brown. The coat of .some was woolly, 
of others silky or satiny, but most of those in Haiti were between silky 
and satiny, yet rougher than the Spanish dogs; with ears pointed and 



[Begin Page: Page 461] 

allkn: dogs of iilK ami;ki< an ahouicinks. 4()1 

ri-cct like those of Avolves. None of tliest' dogs hiirked. Ovicdo 
adds that siiuihir dogs were plentiful in many parts of the continent, 
as in Mexico, Santa IMarta, and Nicaragua. He had eaten their 
riesh and considered it excellent, resembling laiiili. In Nicaragua 
and Mexico the Indians bred numbers of them and at their great 
festivals dog-moat was considered the best dish of all. The natives 
of Haiti hunted some species of Hutia with these dogs. 

Very little seems to have been written descriptive of this breed. 
In his essay on the origin of dogs. Hunter (1787) mentions that a Mr. 
Cameron, who had lived among the Cherokee Indians, informed him 
that the dog found in their country was "very similar to the wolf." 
Cameron thought it remarkable there were not sundry breeds of dogs 
among these Indians, as in Europe. William Bartram (1792, p. 220), 
during his travels in Florida, made special note of a " single black dog, 
which seemed to differ in no respect from the wolf of Florida, except 
his being able to bark as the common dog." It belonged to an Indian, 
who had trained it to tend a troop of semiwild horses, " keeping them 
in a separate company where the,>'^ range; and when he is hungry or 



wants to see his master, in tlie evening lie returns to town, but never 
stays at liome at niglit." Barton (1805) appears to liave made more 
particular inquiry of Bartram concerning tliese Indian Dogs of 
Florida, and describes them as " very similar to the Canis Lycaon, or 
black wolf," yet they are not always black "but of different colours, 
commonly of a bay colour, and about one third less than the wild 
black wolf. It carries its ears almost erect, and has the same wild 
and sly look that the wolf has." Barton adds that the dogs of the 
Cherokees were already (1805) much intermixed with the European 
dogs. 

Peter Kalm informed John Bartram that the dogs of the Canadian 
Indians (?Montreal) were like those in Sweden with erect ears, and 
Bartram himself (in a letter to George Edwards, 1757) recalled as a 
boy seeing the Indian Dogs, with erect ears, accompanying their 
masters on occasional visits to his father's house in Pennsylvania. 
Barton (1805), who seems to have made diligent inquiry about these 
dogs, further describes their aspect as "much more that of the wolf 
than of the common domesticated dogs. His l)ody, in general, is 
more slender than that of our dogs. He is remarkably small behind. 
His ears do not hang like those of our dogs, but stand erect, and are 
large and sharp-pointed. He has a long, small snout, and very sharp 
nose." This breed, he says, was still preserved in the greatest purity 
among the SLx Nations, from whom the Delawares acknowledge that 
they received it. 



[Begin Page: Page 462] 

4()2 mi.l.KTIX: MISKIM of COMPAHAriVK zoolocy. 

.liidginj: trom tin- mniuTous shrll-lu'ap remains ot" wliat sccuis to bt- 
tliis same do*:, it was fonuevly t-onnnon aiiionj; \he New Knglimd 
Indians. In Haklniyt's Voyages (Everynum's Library ed., 6. p. 95) 
is an account of Tlie voyage of tine sliip called the Marigold of Mr. 
Hill of Redrife luito Cape Briton and beyond to the latitude of 44 
degrees and an half, 1 . ")*):>. The narrator tells of meeting with a 
party of "Savages" at Cape Breton in Jvdy, who upon the accidental 
discharge of a musket, came "running right up over the bushes with 
great agilitie and swiftnesse. . .with white staves in their handes 
like halfe pikes, and their dogges of colour blacke not so bigge as a 
greyhounde followed then\ at their heeles; but wee retired unto our 
boate." 

It is probably to this breed of dog that Charlevoix refers in his 
Journal of a voyage to North America (London, 2 vols, 1 761 , transL). 
"The Indians," he writes, "always carry a great number of dogs with 
them in their huntings; these are the only domestick animals they 
breed, and that too only for hunting; they appear to be all of one 
species, with upright ears, and a long .snout like that of a wolf " 
(1,p. 187). 

This is the "major" type of Indian dog reported by Loomis and 
Young (1912) from ]\laine shell-heaps, where rather large-sized speci- 
mens have been discovered. Dog-remains have been found also in 
Connecticut (MacCurdy, 1914) and Block Island, R. I. (Eaton, 1898). 



An Indian Dog-skull (Plate 7) collected by Kennicott on the Peel 
River, about ISGO (U. S. N. M. 6,219) is hardly different, except for 
its very slightly greater size, and seems best referred to the same sort 
of dog, though possibly a distinguishable breed. Richardson (1 829) 
named this dog Canis familiaris var. canadensis, and says it is the 
kind "most generally cultivated by the native tribes of Canada and 
the Fur countries." He describes it as intermediate in size and fonn 
between the Eskimo and the Hare-Indian Dog. Its fur is black and 
gray, mixed with white; some are all black. Apparently identical 
with the skull from Peel River is another collected by Dr. W. H. Dall, 
from a prehistoric Aleut village site in L'^nalaska. Dr. Dall notes that 
this is the only dog-skull which had been found in the undeniably 
prehistoric kitchen-middens of the Aleutian Islands. It still retains 
the upper carnassial, which measures 20.5 mm. in length. The 
occipital condyles are 38 mm. across. The first upper premolar w'^as 
apparently lacking. 

Probably it was a dog of this breed that Audubon figured as the 
Hare-Indian Dog, from a living one in the gardens of the Zoological 



[Begin Page: Page 463] 

AI.I.KX: l)()(;s OK INK AMKUU AN A H( tKK ;l \ KS. 4(t.> 

Society of London. IkrnanI K. Ross (I.S()I) st'cnis to have coiiliiscd 
tlu- two as will; for a skull collected by him at Fort Simpson and seiii 



to the r. S. N. M. as "Wnz/.v likjojui.s'^' iscxcn larj'^er than the one 
from Peel Ri\er and almost undoubtedly a cross with an Kskinio 
Dog-. Both skulls lack the first lower premolar. 

In the North the Common Indian Dof^- Is larljely used anion": the 
forest Indians as a beast of burden. 

Samuel Hearne, on his famous journey to Peel Rl\er, 17(39-72, 
observed that the Indians' " kettles, and some other lumber, are 
always carried by dogs, which are trained to that serMce, and are 
\ery docile and tractable. * * * These dogs are equally willing to haul 
in a sledge, but as few of the men will be at the troul)le of making 
sledges for them, the poor women are obliged to content themselves 
with lessening the bulk of their load, more than the weight, by making 
the dogs carry these articles only, which are always lashed on their 
backs, much after the same manner as packs are, or used formerly to 
be, on pack-horses." 

Klamath-lxdiax Dog. 

Characters. — A medium-sized dog, with a short, bushy tail. 

Distribution. — So far as known, this peculiar breed was found only 
among the Indians in the Klamath RiVer region of Oregon. 

]{eniarks. — The only mention of this dog that I have found is the 
following by Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 1 860, p. 1 1 2): 



"On the Klamath is a dog of good size, with a siiort taii. This is 
not more than six or seven inches iong, and is bushy, or rather broad, 
it being as wide as a man's hand. I was assured they were not cut, 
and I never noticed ionger taiis on the pups. They have the usuai 
erect ears and sharp muzzie of Indian dogs, I'^ut are (what is imtisual 
witii Indian dogs) often brindled (/ray." 

Presumably the shortened tail arose as an independent variation 
among dogs of the Plains-Indian Dog type and was preserved among 
these dogs through selective breeding. Similar short-tailed breeds 
are well known among European dogs, as in the English Sheep-dog, 
and certain '^'arieties of Bull-terriers. MacFai'lane (1903, p. ()96) 
gives an account of a very much prized Eskimo Dog he owned in the 
Mackenzie District, that Avas born tailless and undersized, liut proAed 
an excellent sled-doa;. 



[Begin Page: Page 464] 



i>»-i lU I.I.K'IIN: MISKIM OK { DMPA UATf^ (•'. Zt)(>I.Ot;V. 



SIIOHT-LECiGKD InDlAX DoCi. 



I'lati' 5. fit,r. 1. 



1829. Cnnisfamiliarix var. d. iiorac caledoniac Richardson, Fauna Bonvili- 



Ainer., 1, p. 82. 



(?) 1912. Cotiis familiaris, minor Indian dofi, Looniis and Voutifi, Anier. 



journ. sci., ser. 4, 34, p. 26, fig. 4, D. 



Vliiiraricrs. — Ears erect, iiead iaro;e in proportion, and body long-; 
the legs relatively short but not distorted as in our Turnspits. Fur of 
the body short and sleek, that of the tail longer. This is possiblV a 
derivative of the Common or Larger Indian Dog. 

Dixirihution. — It is hardly possible to trace the former distriljution 
of this type of dog. It was found by Richardson in southern British 
Columbia, and a dog apparently similar is known from Quebec, and 
perhaps formerly in New England and New York. Probably it was 
found among canoe-using or forest-living tribes in the North, hence 
was infreciuent or absent in plains country. 

Notes and Descriptions. — Apparently Richardson (1829) was the 
first to take special note of this breed. He found it among the Attnah 
or Carrier Indians of "New Caledonia," (now British Columbia) and 
it seems to have been bred as well by neighboring tribes as far south at 
least as northern California. For Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 18()0y 
p. 112) makes particular mention of seeing "one peculiar looking dog 
on Eel River, in the interior of northern California, among very wild 
Indians. It had short legs and long body, like a tumspit." Suckley 
in the same work, briefly says that " the Indian dogs about the Dalles 
of the Columbia [Oregon] are so varied in appearance that no special 
description can be given. We might, however, make two types. The 
large * * * and the small, resembling the ' ixirnspit kind ' of whicli Mr. 
Gibbs speaks. The latter are generally white, or spotted liver and 



white, or black and white. This kind is kept more as a playmate for 
the children and a pet for the women." 

It is significant that Suckley mentions the "varied" appearance of 
the Oregon tlogs, so that it was possible to refer them in general to 
but two types. This may have been a result in part of the inter- 
breeding of the larger and the smaller types, and in part perhaps of a 
mixture as Suckley suggests with European breeds already intro- 
duced. 



[Begin Page: Page 465] 

ALLKX: DOliS OF IIIK V.MKKUAN AHOKKilXKS. 4(».') 

Although <iviu'r:ill> associated with the Indians of liritisli ("olunibia 
and nciglihorinji- parts of the northwcstrrn Tnitcfi States, it seems 
likely that this or a similar breed may have been much more widely 
distributed over northern North America, as far east and south as 
Ouebec, New Ejigland, and New York, if not farther. An excellent 
l)hoto{i;raph s'^iven me by Mr. W. H. (\d)ot (Plate 5, fi<i;. 1) was ob- 
tained a few years since among the Bersimis Indians, Ouebec, and 
seems to represent a dog of the same general type. The large head, 
erect ears (somewhat laid back in the photograi)h), long heaVV body, 
short, straight legs, up-turned tail, agree well with other descriptions. 
This particular individual has the spiritless air of an old dog. 

That this breed of dog was found at least as far south as the south- 



ern coast of New England, may possibly be inferred from the account 
by Livermore (1 S77, p. 58) of the dogs of the Block Island Indians, 
of Rhode Island. This isolated colony of Indians numbered some 300 
individuals up to the year 1 700, but by 1 774 was reduced to only 51 . 
In 187G, there was known to be but a single one living on the island. 
According to tlu> author just mentioned, "the 'dogs' of Block Island 
belonging to the Manisseans before the English came have their 
descendants here still, it is believed. They are not numerous, but 
peculiar, differing materially from all the species which we have 
noticed on the mainland, both in figure and disposition. They are 
below'^ a medium-size, with short legs but powerful, broad l)reasts, 
heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound, 
the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition 
that in some makes but little distinction betw'^een friend and foe." 
The description here given, unsatisfactory though it be, impli(>s a dog 
much like that shown in fig. 1 , Plate 5. 

Skeletal Remains. — I am unaware of the existence in any museum, 
of bones that may be definitely associated with the Short-legged 
Indian Dog. But,, as pointed out by Loomis and Young (.1912), 
there are in the prehistoric shell-heaps of the New England coast 
remains of a larger and a smaller Indian Dog, the latter of which on 
the strength of the evidence just given as to the former presence of the 
short-legged breed in eastern Canada and New'^ England, may tenta- 
tively be referred to this animal. The authors mentioned liaN e char- 
acterized the lower teeth of this smaller dog on the basis of jaws from 
the ]Maine shell-heaps and through the kindness of Professor Loomis 
I have had opportunity to study the specimens. 



The mandibles are all more or less broken, but include several in 
fairlV good condition. They differ from those of the Larger or Com- 



[Begin Page: Page 466] 



4G(i 



HI I.I.KIIN:MISKIMOF(C»M 1' AHA I 1 VK ZOOLOGY, 

mon Indian Doj; in \\\v sniallor size of the individual teeth as well as 
in the shorter tooth-nnv. Yet the eontrast is not always very strik- 
ing and no douht there was more or less intercrossing of the two types. 
The teeth of the smaller dog are usually more close-set than those of 
the larger, and on comjiarison, the carnassial tooth is seen to he de- 
cidedly smaller, its metaconid sometimes (|uite ohsolete, and with a 
distinct tendency for the outer of the two cusps of the heel (hypo- 
conid) to become enlarged and trenchant. As in the Common Indian 
Dog, and in American aboriginal dogs generally, it is common if not 
usual, for the first lower premolar to be lacking, and the same is 
freciuently true of the first upper premolar. Such an anomaly is 
occasional in all domestic dogs. Indeed, Bourguignat (bS75) founded 
Ills genus Lycorus on such a fossil canid jaw — probalily of a wolf — 
from a caveni-deposit in France. In his specimen the first premolar 
was lacking in each ramus. 

Loomis and '^'oung (1 01 2) mention sitnilar small jaws from Indian 



sites in Arkansas. 

Of iimi)-bones referabie to tlie Sliort-iegged Dog it is particuiariy 
desirabie to obtain specimens for comparison witii tlie otiier breeds. 
Among limb-bones in tine Amiierst collection from Maine are several 
longer and shorter. The latter in the lack of evidence to the con- 
trary, may be reganled as having come from the present type. Of 
two humeri, one is nearly perfect and appears to be that of an adult 
animal, with its epiphy.ses throughlV fu.sed to the shaft. Its ole- 



[Begin Page: Page 467] 

ai.lkn: dogs of tiik amk.hfc an ahohkuvks. 4(')7 

cranial perforation is large and oval, somewhat less than halt' thr 
breadth of the shaft at the same point. The deltoid ridj'^e is t\ picall\ 
prominent. The l)one itself is slender and not in any way thiek«'n»'d 
or distorted. It measures: — greatest length, I'M) mm.; antero- 
posterior diameter of head, 31 ; transverse diameter of head, 2."); 
transverse diameter of distal end, 2.")..i; width of distal articular 
surface, 17. It is thus about three quarters the length of the humerus 
in the Larger or Common Indian Dog, proportionally slender, yet 
considerably longer than that of the Techichi. What is undoubtedly 
the radius of the same dog, measures 129 mm. in greatest length; 
14.5 in diameter at the proximal and 19 at the distal end. A femur, 
possibly of the same specimen measures: — greatest length, VM\ mm.; 
greatest transverse width of distal end, 25. It is thus slightly longer 



than the humerus, in the normal proportion. The iimb-bones imii- 
cate a dog about the stature of a terrier or a basset-hound. 

Among many isolated iower jaws from Maine sheii-heaps are some 
in which the camassiai tooth is noticeably narrow and intennediate 
in size between that of the tj-pical Short-legged Dog and the Larger 
or Conunon Indian Dog. These probably represent cross-bred 
animals as Loomis and Young have suggested. 

Uses. — These smaller dogs were apparently the familiar household 
pets or hunting companions of the Indians of forested country or of 
the canoe-using tribes. They were too small to be of service as pack- 
animals with travels or pannier, and hence seem not to have been 
much in favor with the Plains Indians, whose main subsistence was the 
Bison for the hunting of which, dogs were unnecessary. Suckley 
(1860) particularly mentions that they were kept more as a "play- 
mate for the children and a pet for the women" among the tribes of 
the Columbia River. Moreover, a small dog is a better companion 
in a canoe than a larger cimnsy animal. 

Richardson says of the Short-legged Dog, that it was used in the 
chase, was very active and agile at jumping. It was perhaps a dog 
of this t\-pe that was used in hunting the beaver. George Bird Grin- 
nell (Forest and stream, 1 897, 49, p. 382) writes that the Cheyenne 
Indians, before their intercourse with whites, hunted the Beaver with 
dogs, by breaking the dam and thus exposing the bea'^-er houses and 
their underwater entrance. "The dogs which were small enough to 
enter this hole, and yet were pretty good sized animals, went into the 
hole " and worried the beaver till it followed the dog out, when an 



Indian waiting outside, clubbed the beaver to death. Le Jeune, in 
his Relation de ce qui c'est passe en la Xouvelle France [Quebec] 



[Begin Page: Page 468] 

408 mi.LKTIN: miskim of comi'akativk zoology. 

on ranne 103:'^ (Jesuit iriations, 1S07, 5. p. 105) mentions this use 
of dogs in Bea\er hunting; "sometimes when the dogs encounter the 
Beaver outside its house, they pursue and take it easily; I have never 
seen this eliase, but ]\a\e been tokl of it; and the savages highly \alue 
a dog -which scents and runs down this animal." Le Jeune speaks of 
the familiarity of the Indian dogs, that in winter they are unable to 
sleep outside and come into the cabins, lying and walking over the 
inmates. Elsewhere he speaks of giving food to a 'petit chien,' but 
adds that " the suAages do not throw to the dogs the bones of female 
Beavers and Porcupines, — at least certain specified bones .... yet 
they make a thousand exceptions to this rule, for it does not matter 
if the vertelirae or nnnp of these animals be given to the dogs, but the 
rest must be thrown into the fire." 

Testimony of early travellers is somewhat conflicting as to the 
eating of their dogs by the Indians. Le Jeune states that "in the 
famine which we endured, our savages would not eat their dogs, 
because they said that, if the dog was killed to be eaten, a man would 
be killed by blows from an axe." On other occasions, however, such 
scruples were not observed. Thus Father Rasles, in a letter written 



to his brother in 1710, from Narantsook, forty miles up the Kennebec 
River, Maine, says that at the news of the French and English War, 
the Indian young men were ordered by the older Indians to kill dogs 
for the purpose of making the war-feast (Jesuit relations, 1 897, 67, 
p. 203) — possibly here with a view to sending their dogs on before, 
should death o\ertake their masters. Feasts of dog-flesh seem to 
have been commoner among the Indians of the West and South, and 
Fremont in his narrative of his explorations (1845, p. 42) recounts 
being invited, as a mark of honor, to a dog-feast. " The dog was in a 
large pot over the fire, in the middle of the lodge, and immediately 
on our arrival was dished up in large wooden bowls, one of which was 
handed to each. The flesh appeared very glutinous, with something 
of the flavor and appearance of mutton. Feeling something mo'^'e 
behind me, I looked round, and found that I had taken my seat among 
a litter of fat young puppies." 

Harmon, writing in 1820, after nineteen years spent in travel 
through the Northwest from Montreal to the Pacific, speaks of the 
smaller dog used in hunting, and a larger dog as well. The latter is 
rank and not good eating like the former, of whose flesh the Indians 
and French Canadian voyageiirs were very fond. 

In the New England shell-heaps, the dog-remains occur either as 
burials — the entire skeleton undisturbed — or as scattered portions. 



[Begin Page: Page 469] 



allkn: dogs of thk amkkicax ahokkmxks. 4()V) 

as if the l)ones had been thrown out after the Hesh was eaten. There 
seems, however, to he httle or no evidenee that the bones were cracked 
for marrow. 

The Jesuit father Biard in 1616, mentions dogs, kettU's, and axes as 
among the presents given by a young Indian to the father of his 
intended bride in payment for her. Among other customs of the 
Indians of Arcadia, he recounts that at a funeral, dogs are presented 
the dying man, as well as skins, arrows, and so forth. The dogs are 
then killed in order to send them on before him to the other world, 
and their flesh is later eaten by the people (Jesuit relations, ISi9(», 
3, p. 101). 

Clallam-lxdiax Dog. 
Plate 4, fig. 1. 

1840. Cams laniger Hamilton Smith, Jardine's Nat. librarj-. Mammalia'^ 

10, p. 134. 

1867. Canis domesticus, camtschatkensis longipilis Fitzinger, Sitzb. K. akad. 

wiss. Wien, 56, pt. 1, p. 406. 

Characters. — A medium-sized dog, with erect ears, and bushy tail. 
Hair rather thick and woolly; white, or perhaps brown and black. 



Distribution. — Formerly found among tine coast Indians of the 
Puget Sound region and Vancouver Island. Lord (1866, 2, chap. 1 1) 
asserts that these dogs seem to have fb-st been kept by the Chinook 
Indians, once very numerous near the mouth of the Columbia River, 
and were thence carried to Puget Sound and Xainimo. The source of 
this information is not given, but it is worth remarking that LcAvis 
and Clark make no mention of the breed on the Columbia. Van- 
couver found them near the then Port Orchard, and apparently at 
least as far up the Sound as Admiralty Inlet. Hamilton Smith 
implies that they were to be found at Xootka Sound on the west 
coast of Vancouver Island. 

Descriptions. — The earliest account of this dog is that by the navi- 
gator, Vancouver (1798, 1 , p. 266). In May, 1792, while at Port 
Orchard, Puget Sound, he writes: — 

" The dogs belonging to this tribe of Indians [at Port Orchard] were 
numerous, and much resembled those of Pomerania, though in general 
somewhat larger. The'^' were all shorn as close to the skin as sheep are 
in England; and so compact were their fleeces, that large portions 



[Begin Page: Page 470] 

470 lUI.I.KTIX: ML'SELM OF t OMI'AKATIVE ZOQLOGY. 

I'duld 1 )0 lifted up hy a conier without causing; any separation. They 
were composed of a mixture of a coarse kind of wool, with very fine 



long hair, capable of being spun into yarn. This gave me reason to 
believe, that their woollen clothing might in part be composed of this 
material mixed with a finer kind of wool froni some other animal, as 
their gannents were all too fim> to be manufactured from the coarse 
coating of the dog alone. The abundance of these garments amongst 
the few people we met w'ith, indicates the animal from whence the 
raw material is procured, to be Very common in this neighborhood; 
but as they ha\e no one domesticated excepting the dog, their supply 
of wool for their clothing can only be obtained by hunting the wild 
creature that produces it; of which we could not obtain the least 
information." KIsewhere he mentions a deer "they had killed on the 
island, and from the numl)er of persons that came from thence, the 
major part of the remaining inhabitants of the village, with a great 
nimiber of their dogs, seemed to have been engaged in the chase," 
this near Admiralty Inlet. Farther up Puget Island, 48° 2'^'N, 237° 
57§'W, at a large village " they were met by upwards of tAvo hundred 
[Indians], some in their canoes with their families, and others walking 
along the shore, attended by about forty dogs in a drove, shorn close 
to the skin like sheep [this in June]" {Ibid, p. 284). 

Hamilton Smith (1840) who, in addition to Vancouver's account, 
had information from an Indian who had resided two years at 
Xootka, speaks of it as a large dog, " with pointed upright ears, docile, 
but chiefly \aluable on account of the immense load of fur it bears on 
the back, of white, and brown, and l)lack colours, but having the 
woolly proportion so great and fine, that it may well be called a fleece." 

Notwithstanding Smith's assertion as to the "brown and black 



colours" of this dog, it is not at aii certain that this was the usuai case. 
Suckiey (1 8G0, p. 1 1 2)"says positively that "aii the Ciaiiam dogs 
that I saw were pure white; but they have the sharp nose, pointed 
ear, and hang-dog, thievish appearance of other Indian dogs." Gibbs 
also {Ibid.) mentions their whiteness only, and adds that the very 
soft hair is sheared like the wool of sheep, and made into blankets, 
though at that time, 1860, it was "generally intermixed with the 
ravellings of old English blankets to facilitate twisting with [?into] 
yam." 

Lord (18GG) further remarks that this w4iite, long-haired dog was 
kept by only a few coast tribes near A'ancouver. The dogs were 
confined "on islands to prevent their extending or escaping," and it 
differed "in every specific detail from all the other breeds of dogs 



[Begin Page: Page 471] 

ai.lkn: i)()<;s ok 'hik amkkk a\ ahoukmxes. 4/1 

Ix-lon'^ing to cither toast or inland Indians." He supposes it to be of 
Japanese origin, recalling the long-haired Japanese Lap-dog, which 
however, seems remote enough in other characters. Lord adds that 
"in the manufacture of rugs from the hair of this flog, the Indians often 
added the wool of the Mountain Goat, or duck feathers, or wild hemp. 
They dyed the hair as well. He obtained several of these blankets 
along the coast for the British Museum. Xewcombe (1 909, p. 50) 
gives a further account of the method of making yarn fnmi the liair. 



which he says, was removed from the dried skin of the dog with 
knives or puiied out after moistening the hide and ".sweating" the 
hair to loosen the roots. The wool was then made into loose threads 
by rolling. Witii the introduction of Hudson's Hay Company 
blankets this industry has ceased and the dog was practically extinct 
at the time of his writing. 

As to the origin or affinities of this breed, little can be said. Some 
writers ha\e classed it with the Siberian anfl Eskimo dogs, l)ut it is 
likely that it was a breed of the larger type of Indian dog. The dis- 
inclination to take to water, made use of by the Luhans to confine 
the animals to islands, is a trait shared l)y the Eskimo Dog. The 
precaution was possibly taken in order to prevent crossing with otiier 
breeds of Indian Dogs. 

Windle and Humphreys (1 890) in their table of cranial proportions 
of Eskimo Dogs, include those of a Nootka Dog in the British '^luseum. 
It is not clear, however, if it was from a dog of the breed under con- 
sideration, and as no actual dimensions are given, the figures are not 
comparable with other direct measurements. 

I am indebted to Mr. C. T. Currelly, C'lU'ator of the Royal On- 
tario Musetmi of Archaeology at Toronto, for a photograph (Plate 4, 
fig. 1 ) of the unique painting made at '^'ictoria, B. ('., in 1 S4G, by 
Paul Kane and now at that Museum. In the foreground is one of the 
white woolly dogs in question, its apparently erect ears nearly hidden 
in the long hair of the head. Nearby an Indian woman is weaving 
a blanket, no doubt from yarn made of dogs' hair, a ball of which 
another woman in the background is spinning. The use of dogs' 



hair in making blankets is not confined to tine Clallams. Tine ancient 
Zunis appear to Inave made similar use of it; and Bannister Q869) 
mentions an Indian blanket from Mackenzie Ri\er, woven of dogs' 
hair. The natives of New Zealand regularly employed dogs' hair 
for braiding and ornament. 



[Begin Page: Page 472] 

472 lUI.LKTIN: MISKIM OV IDMrAHA TU K /.«>(')l,()(iY. 

1n(.\Doi;. 
Plan- 9. ' v'^ 

1 844. Cauls ingac Tsfhudi, I'ntors. iilior die fauna Peruana, riieiolofiiie, 

p. 13,249. 

1885. Canis ingae pccuarius Nehring, Sitzl). Gesollscli. natmf. freunde 

Berlin, p. 5-13. 

Character-. — This is the hir'^er dog oF tile ancient Peruvians. It 
was about the size of a small Collie, hut more heavily proportioned. 
Tschudi describes it as ha'^ing the head small, snout rather sharply 
pointed, upper lip not cleft; ears erect, triangular, small; body short 
and strong, squarely l)uilt (" untersetzt"), legs rather short; tail 
about two thirtis the length of body, fully haired and curled forward. 
Pelage rough, long, and thick; color dark ochre-yellow with dark 



wavy shadings; belly and inner side of limbs somewhat brighter than 
the grotmd color of the back. No light spots above the eyes. 

The skull is heavy in proportion to its size, with a narrow rostrum. 
The brain-case is rugose for the attachment of muscles, yet the tem- 
poral muscles, even in old dogs seem to little more than meet medially, 
so that at most only a low sagittal crest is fonned in old animals 
except at the extreme occiput, where it is contrastingly marked, form- 
ing a high knife-edge on the median line of the interparietal. The 
palate shows a strong thickening at its posterior end, fomiing two low 
ridges one on each side between the last molar and the posterior narial 
opening. 

Distributiuu. — The former distribution of this l)reed has not been 
definitely traced. Mummified remains are known from Ancon, 
Peru, and from various sites that have been excavated in that country. 
In Tschudi's time it appeared to be confined to the upland tribes of 
Indians. Of this type were all the mummies and skulls of dogs 
found by him in the ancient graves among the Sierras. It probably 
was kept l)y the Indians of northwestern Argentina as well. 

Xomnirlaturc. — Tschudi in 1 S44, was apparently the first to name 
this as a distinct breed of dog, Canis ingac. Forty years later Nehring 
in writing of the dog-mummies from the ancient necropolis of Ancon, 
referred it to a collie-like type with the combination, Canis ingac 
pccuarius. It is, however, \ery different cranially and otherwise 
from the Collie. 



Measurements. — The largest Inca Dog among those from Ancon 



[Begin Page: Page 473] 



ai.i.i-.n: docs of iiik a.mi.kican aihikkmnks. 



47:; 



stiulitd 1)\ Nclirinu (ISS4ii) was smaller than a Sliicp-do'^', witii a skull 
about 1 72 mill, long, luimcnis 1 47. ulna 1 72, radiiis 1 40. A smalItT 
one had a skull lonuth of Km, head and body (KiO, tail including hair 
240. huuuTus i:iO. In tht- lower jaws the first premolar was i'ri- 
(lueutly missing. 

The following table gives measurements of the six largest skulls 
among a series of nine belonging to the V. S. X. M. 

Remarks. — Writing about 1 844, Tschudi describes the chief char- 
acteristics of this dog as treachery and mischie'^'ousness. Every 
Indian hut and shepherd of the Sierra and puna had several. TheV 
seemed to show a special antipathy toward white people. A Euro- 
pean traveller approaching an Indian hut on horseback would be beset 
by these dogs springing up against his horse to bite his legs. They 
are courageous, and fight an enemy with determination, dragging 
themselves to the attack even when mortally wounded. The Indians 
train them to track and capture tinamous. 



In their great work on the Necropolis of Ancon, Reiss and Stiibel 
include a brief chapter by Xehring (1 884b) on the mummified remains 
of dogs discovered there. Some of these are figured and show a pale 



[Begin Page: Page 474] 

474 in I.I.KTIX: MISKIM (»K < OMI'AHAIIV K ZOOI.OCJY. 

yellowish colorint; with (hirkcr areas, ill a more cxieiisixf article 
Xehring (IS84a) gives a particular account of the dogs of Ancou. 
He first transcribes passages from Garcilasso de la '^'ega to show that 
the Incas had ilogs previous to the Spanish concfuest, and that the 
dog entered into certain religious rites of the Incas. .\ nunnniified 
dog is described as having thick hair, shorter, however, on head and 
feet, thickest on neck and breast foniiing a kind of mane. The color 
was yellow, clear or soiled in places, Avith irregular brown-shaded areas. 
The tail was thick and bushy, wolf-like, also yellow. The ears of 
most of the specimens seemed to have been clipped. He suggests the 
North American Wolf or Coyote as the original source of the Inca 
dogs, but there seems no ground for the .selection of either as an 
immediate ancestor. 

More recently, Eaton (,1910, p. 25) has recorded the discovery of 
tlog -mummies with pre-Columbian burials at Machu Picchu, Peru. 
He adds that " dogs of this general type, though usually a little smaller 
than those figiu'ed in Reiss and vStiibel's Necropolis of Ancon, wt're 
frequently seen in the parts of the Cordillera that I visited, and these 



animals may be largely derived from the ancient stock . . The 
modem Indian dogs of this ancient type are very wolf-like and mani- 
fest a most Inconvenient fear of the camera." He suggests the obvious 
possibility of present-day mixture with breetis Imported from 
Europe, and gives a reproduction (p. 50, fig. 47) of a photograph 
showing dimly an Indian with his dog. 

The fine series of PeruMan dog-skulls In the !'. S. X. M. contains 
nine that show complete gradation In size between the smallest (which 
I have considered more or less typical of the TechlchI) and the largest 
which represents the Inca Dog. Since these skulls are more or less 
comparable as to age. It .seems likely that the gradation In size Is due 
to free Interbreeding of the two sorts of dogs. The largest skull of 
the series (U. S. N. M. 1 76,309, of which the measurements have been 
gIVen) Is almost precisely matched by the skull of a Comnlon Indian 
Dog from Peel River, Arctic .America, collected by Rol)ert Kennl- 
cott about 1860 (U. S. N. M. 6,219). The only obvious differences 
are that the palate of the Inca Dog shows the peculiar thickened ridges 
at the posterior end and Is much narrower across the occipital con- 
dyles. The latter characteristic Is shared by the other dog-skulls 
from Peru In contrast with the northern dogs, and Is no doubt among 
the latter a result of their use as sledge-dogs, for the greater develop- 
ment of the neck and chest muscles In hauling might well enough 
demand a broader support from the skull. This general similarity 



[Begin Page: Page 475] 



ai.i.kn: 1 )()(;s oi- iiik \MKKr( a\ ah(>i<l(;im;s. 47.') 

of skull and skok'tal proportions prol)al)ly indicates a ciosci' relation- 
ship with the lavfier Indian dogs of northern North America, than witii 
the Wolf or Coyote as Xehrin<r has suggested. 

What may he feral dogs of this hreed are said to he found in the 
Island of Juan Fernandez, off Peru, .\ceording to Krmel ( ISSN, p. 51 '^) 
they are the native Araucarian dogs, shaggy -coated, of medium size, 
and very powerful. Semitamed ones are sometimes used there in 
hunting the feral goats. 

Ihering (1013) has recorded the discovery t)f an entire skeleton of a 
dog at Hualfin, Salta Province, in northwestern Argentina. Its 
skull measurements, as recorded hy this author, correspond well with 
the larger of those above given, and his identification of the spex'imen 
as an Inca Dog is ])rol)at)ly correct. 

LOXG-HAIRKD lx(ADOG. 

Characters. — Apparently similar to the Inca Dog, htit with longer 
coat. 

Dutribution. — Peru and probably coastwise to parts of Chile. 

Xotes. — In liis Bibliography of the tribes of Tierra del Fuego and 
adjacent territories. Cooper (1917, p. 44) mentions "a breed of long- 
haired shaggy dogs" which was formerly raised among some of the 



Chonos Indians north of the Taitao Peninsula, Cliile, about Lat. 45° 
South. Nothing is kno'^Ti about these dogs except the statements of 
Goicueta and Del Techo, based perhaps on independent testimony. 
It is assumed that tills breed was of native origin since at that early 
date (about 1553) it is rather unlikely that such dogs would have 
been obtained from Europeans. Possibly they were derived from the 
larger collie-like type of Inca dog anciently found among the Peruvians 
(Eaton, 1 91 6, p. 49). From the hair of these dogs, the Chonos made 
short mantles that covered the shoulders and upper part of the trunk. 
According to Cooper, the information of Goicueta is based on the rela- 
tion of Cortes Hojea's expedition of 1553-54, when he commanded 
one of the vessels under Ulloa, and possibly also furnished one of the 
sources for Del Techo's account. The latter was a Jesuit missionary 
who wrote in 1673 concerning the labors of ills brethren among the 
Chonos of the Guaitecas Islands. 

Referable to this breed is probably the long-haired dog described 

by Nehring (1887a) from a well-preserved mummy found in the course 

of excavations at Ancon. Peru. It was found -s'^Tapped in cloth of 



[Begin Page: Page 476] 

476 HI I.I.KIIN: MISKIM OF ( O.MI'AUATIV K Z()(')L()C;Y. 

trtv-wool. its lirad and h'vl tied t»)gi'tluM'. In tho size of its skull 

and It-y-hont's it was said to hv like the oi'dinary Inoa Dog of the collie- 

Hke type, l)ut elothed with unusually long hair, especially on the feet 



anti tail. The hair is described as of a duii yeiiow. This dog must 
have heen very simiiar to the Long-haired Fuehio Dog previously 
mentioned as di.scovered i)y Messrs. (iuernsey and Kidder in e.xcava- 
tiojis at Marsh Pass. Arizona. 

P.\T.\Go.\l AXDog. 

Characicr.s. — A mediiun-sized dog, as big as a iarge Foxhound, 
coat usually short and wiry, or longer and of softer texture; ears 
short and erect; color dark, more or less unifonn, rarely spotted; 
dark brownish l)lack, dark tan, or occasionally black; tail btishy. 
General appearance like a small Wolf. 

Distrihidion. — Found among the Foot Indians of the eastern parts 
of Tierra del Fuego, northward into Patagonia, the northw'^estward 
limits of distril)ution not clearly known. 

Rnnarks. — Hamilton Smith (1 840, p. 21 3) quotes a letter from 
Captain Fitzroy of the Beaglk, that the Patagonian Dog is strong, 
about the size of a large Foxhound, coat short and wiry, though 
sometimes soft and long, like that of a Newfoundland Dog. In color 
it is dark, nearly unifonn, rarely spotted. It is wolfish in appearance, 
somewhat resembles the Shepherd Dog, will growl and bark loudly. 

It is doubtless a dog of this breed that is meant by Furlong in his 
statement that of the two types of dogs foimd among the Onas of 
Tierra del Fuego, one is like a Wolf. 

Cunningham (1 871 , p. 307) mentions that while near Gente Grande 



Bay, Sandy Point, in tlie Strait of Magellan, three dogs wandered 
about in the neighborhood of his landing party, "barking and howling 
dismally. The first was very much like a fox in size and general 
appearance, and of a reddish-gray colour; the second had a piebald 
smooth coat, with drooping ears; while the third was clothed with long 
dark brownish-black hair, had erect ears, and presented a marked 
resemblance to a small wolf." The first was probably a Fuegian Dog, 
obtained through intercourse with tribes of the western part of the 
Magellanic Archipelago; the second was possibly a mongrel European 
dog; the last periiaps a Patagonian Dog. 

Of this animal, Spegazzini (1 882, p. 1 76) writes that it differs greatly 
from the Fuegian Dogs of the Canoe Indians, "y para mi serian 6 



[Begin Page: Page 477] 

ALI.K.X: noes OF Till-, AMKUK AX AMOHKIINKS. 477 

cruza 6 di'stnulii'iitt's directos del loho-colorudo 6 gran zorro-colo- 
rado." It is difticiilt, however, to see any j'^round for deriving it 
from the pecuHar Panipean W'oW. It is niudi larger than the Fuegian 
Dog, and is described l)y Spegazzini as tall, sU'nderly huilt. witii fierce 
eyes; long-haired and hiishx -tailed; the color prevailingly dark tan, 
hut occasionally black; rather silent, not liarkiiig tliough giving voice 
to melancholy howls. 

Fitzroy (see Hamilton Smith, 1S4(), ]). 21")) particularly describes a 



dog seen near the Strait of LeMaire. No temptation would induce its 
master to part witli it. It was the size of a large setter, with a " wolf- 
ish appearance about the head, and looked extremely savage. Behind 
the shoulders it was ([uite smooth and short-haired, but from the 
shoulders fonvard it had thick rough hair," giving it a lion-like ap- 
pearance, "of a dark grey colour, lighter beneath, and white on the 
belly and breast; the ears were short but pointed, the tail, smooth 
and tapering;" the fore quarters very strong but the hinder appearing 
weaker. The short-haired tail seems unnatural for a Patagonian Dog, 
?nd may have be-en evidence of a strain of blood from a European 
source. 

The eastern Fuegians or Onas, are considered by ethnologists to be 
derivatives of the Patagonians, and no doubt originally had these 
dogs from their mainland relatives, or brought them at the time when 
they colonized the Fuegian country. 

It is unfortunate that no bones or figures of the Patagonian Dog 
are available for comparison. Ihering (1913) has, however, recorded 
the skull of a prehistoric dog from Amaicha, Tucuman province, 
northwestern Argentina, which may represent it, and at the same 
time indicate nearly its northern range. This skull was 190 mm. in 
total (?occipitorostral) length, the upper fourth premolar 19 mm., 
the combined upper molars 20 mm., hence a somewhat larger breed 
than the Inca Dog. 

The native Patagonian Dog is not to be confused with the dogs 
introduced by Europeans, that have since become feral on the pampas 



of southern South America. These, according to various writers 
(Rengger, 1 S30; Hamiiton Smith, 1 S40; Basse, 1 879) are mongrei of 
severai breeds, notabiy one iike the Great Dane. They are said to 
go in troops and to make burrows in which to sheiter their young. 
This burrowing habit has been noticed in case of other feral dogs. 
Thus Coues (1 876) records the case of a brindled cur that became feral, 
and took up its habitation in a burrow on the open prairie, near 
Cheyenne, "Wyoming, and in this den had a litter of five puppies. 



[Begin Page: Page 478] 

478 m 1 ,1 . K pin: miskim of comparative zoolooy. 

Fitzingcr USOT, p. 397) applies to tile feral Pampean Dojj the Latin 
combination "Catiia doincitticun, jn/rcnaiciui aico" (!) and briefly states 
that it is probably a hybrid between the Pyrenian Dog and the Bull- 
dog. Hamilton Smith (1S40) luul previously described it under the 
Latin name Cams campivogus. 

As to the origin of the Patagonian Dog, there is little satisfactory 
evidence, but it may be assumed to be a derivative of the same stock 
as the Inca Dog. The tooth measurements of the skull recorded by 
von Ihering (1913), cf. p. 477, accord very nearly with those of the 
largest Inca Dog of our table (p. 473), though even larger. 

Mexican Hairless Dog; Xoloitzcuintli. 
Plate 2; Plate 3, fig. 2. 



1651. Lvfjus mcxicanus Recchi and Lynceus, Rerum medicarum Novae 

Hispaniae thesaurus, p. 479, fig. 

1766. Canis mexicanus Linne, Syst. nat., ed. 12, 1, pt. 1, p. 60, (based on 

Recchi and Lj'nceus). 

1 788. Canis famiiiar is aegyptius Gmeiin, Linn6's Syst. nat., ed. 1 3, 1 , pt. 1 , 

p. 68 (in part). 

Canis famiiiaris orthotus xoioitzcuintii Reichenbach, Naturg. raubth., 

p. 150. 

1 821 . Canis nudus Schinz, Cuv. thierreichs, 1 , p. 21 8. 

1827. Canis famiiiaris caraibaeiis Lesson, Man. mammaiogie, p. 163. 

1844. Canis caraibicus Tschudi, Fauna Peruana, Theroiogie, p. 249. 

1 887. Dysodus gibbus Cope, Amer. nat., 21 , p. 1 1 26. 

Characters. — A dog of medium-size, rather heaviiy buiit, and 
iong-bodied in proportion to its height; ears iarge and erect; taii 
thick, drooping or carried neariy straight behind; hair neariy absent 
except for a few coarse vibrissae and generaiiy a sparse coating on the 
taii, particuiariy near the tip; sometimes a tuft on the crown. The 
skin is usuaiiV pigmented, a siaty gray, or reddish gray, paier in 
the bends of the iegs; sometimes biotched with white. 

Distribution. — This race seems to have been native among the 
peopies of Centrai and South America from Chihuahua perhaps con- 
tinuousiy southward, to the Peruvian iowiands, and in some of the 



Greater Antilles; it may also have been indigenous among the In- 
dians of Paraguay. 

History. — The first account of the Mexican Hairless Dog by a 



[Begin Page: Page 479] 

AI.LF.X: DOGS OF I III. AMKKUAX ABOUIGIM'.S. 47!) 

Kiiropoaii, seems to be that oF Fraiiciseo Hernandez, wlio lived 
between the years loll: and 1 578. His Historia Ainniahum vt Minera- 
lium Novae Hispaniae, is printed on 9G folio pafj;es as part of llecchi 
and Lynceus's Reruni Mediearum Novae Hisj)aniae Thesaurus, 
1651 , which was apparently intended as a monoffrapliie ehil)oratiou 
of Hernandez's work. This writer brought back an aecoinit of three 
sorts of <loj;;s, wliieh were in his day kept by the native Mexicans. 
The first of these he had himself seen, but tile two others he had 
neither seen, nor known of their having been brought to Europe. 
This first sort he states, is called the Xoloj/tzcuinlli and is larger than 
the others, exceeding three feet in body length, but with the peculi- 
arity of having no hairy co\ering, yet with a soft skin, spotted with 
fulvous and sjate color. (" Prinuis Xoloytzcuintii \ ocatus alios 
corporis vincit magnitudine, quae tres plerum; excedit cubitos, sed 
habet peculiare nullis pills tegi, verum molli tantuni, ac depili cuti, 
fiduo atque C'yaneo colore maculata."). The two other sorts of dogs 
were the hump-backed or Michuacan dog and the Techichi, elsewhere 
discussed. TJie Xoloi/izcui}}{li of Hernandez is clearly the Hairless 



Dog, and a most elaborate account of the animal is given by Recchi 
and Lynceus (1 651 , p. 479 ff.) with a fairly recognizable figure (Plate 2, 
fig. 1). These authors apparently had an actual specimen, possibly 
one brought aVne to Europe; at all events they describe its appearance 
as fierce and wolf-like, with a few bristly hairs about the mouth, the 
mammae ten as in the wolf and dog, and the vertebrae of the same 
number as in a dog-skeleton with which they compared it, namely 
seven cervicals, thirteen dorsals, se\en lumbosacral, se\enteen caud- 
als. They name the animal Lupus vwxicanus in contradistinction 
to their AIco or Cauls mrxicana, which was probably a Raccoon. 
This name appears in zoological nomenclature in the twelfth edition 
of Linne's Systema naturae under the genus Canis. The diagnosis, 
evidently based on the figure and description just noticed, reads: 
"C. Cauda deflexa laevi, corpore cinereo fasciis fuscis maculisque 
fulvis variegata"; the habitat is given as the warmer parts of Mexico. 
Linne's first reference is to Brisson, whose description — " Canis 
cinereus, maculis fulvis variegatus" — is clearly from the same 
source. Hitherto Linne's Cauls vie.vicanus has been regarded as 
applying to the wolf of Southern Mexico, but no true wolf is known 
from that part of the country. Miller (1 91 2a) seems to have been the 
first to question the propriety of using the name for a wolf, but leaves 
the matter unsettled, saying that according to E. W. Nelson, "the 
wolf of the southern end of the [Mexican tableland became extinct 



[Begin Page: Page 480] 



480 iuli.ktin: miskim of (ompahativkzocilocy. 

al)(>ut fifty yiars ap)" (1S()0). Soinc otIuT namr uiiist tlu'ivfore he 
applii'tl to this wolf if it ever hv shown to Ik- distinct. 

The above accounts by Hernandez and ll)y Uecchi and Lynceus are 
the basis of most of the earher references to the INIexican Hairless Dog. 
Lesson, in 1 S27, howe\er, redescribed it under the name caraihaniff, 
and Omelin. earlier, 17SS, had considered it the same as the Turkish 
or Kj;yptian Hairless Do};, under the name ('anis f. (lecjupiius; this 
however, is a hairless variety of another breed. 

.Vo/r.v. — The fonner distribution of this remarkal)le dog is now 
hardly traceable with certainty except in a general way, but it was 
kept by the Mexicans of Chihuahua and southward, as well as by 
the natives of Peru, more especially those of the lower altitudes. 
According to Seler (1890) the jNlexicans wrapped these, dogs in cloths 
at night as a protection against cold. Some were not naturally 
hairless, but Avere rubbed with turpentine from early youth, causing 
the hair to fall out. On the other hand, dogs naturally hairless were 
raised, as at the pueblos Teotlixco and Tocilan. The Zapotec and 
'^laya langiuiges ha\e separate words for the hairless dog. The term 
xohHicuinill is said to signify the monstrous dog. Patrick Browne 
(1789. p. 48(5) Avriting of the natural history of Jamaica, mentions the 
Indian dog as " Canis pilis carens, minor," a creature "frequent 
among the Jcics and //ryrw.v" in that island; he describes it as "gen- 
erally about the size of a cur-dog with a rough skin, which looks like 
the hide of a hog." There is nothing to indicate, however, that the 
breed was common in the West Indies. 



In Peru, Tschudi (1844, p. 249) observed this dog mainly on the 
coast, since its lack of a hairy coat made it unable to withstand the 
cold of the higher altitudes of the interior except in the warm valleys, 
and then only if carefully protected. He describes it as slaty gray 
or reddish gray, sometimes spotted, and says it is voiceless. He is 
probably mistaken, however, in supposing these were the dogs found 
by Columbus among the Lucayans. Nearly twcntV years previously, 
Lesson had seen the Hairless Dog in numl)ers at Payta, Peru. 

According to Rengger (1830), a hairless dog, possibly identical with 
the Mexican Hairless Dog, was indigenous among the Indians of 
Paraguay, who had a special word — i/(iGuci — for it. He describes it 
as haxing a relatively small head, pointed snout, ears erect or only 
their tips drooping forward, rump fat, extremities fine, tail spindle- 
sha])((l anfl usually drooping. Some individuals do not bark, but 
howl only. 

During the last hundred years, little attention seems to have l)een 



[Begin Page: Page 481] 

AT.I.KN: 1 M)(;S OF THK AMKHICAN AHOHICIN'KS. 4.S1 

giv(Mi to this breed, althon'^'^h lately it has l)een taken u|) by <1 ()>; fan- 
ciers. Ix'Conte, in ISoli, calls it the Comanche Dofj, and says it is 
common among the Indians of that tribe, but, " though some of these 



dogs have l)een brought within the United States, we have no descrip- 
tion of them.'" Packard (ISSo) mentions seeing one in his \isit to 
Mexico, but they were apparently uncommon. In a recent letter 
from Mr. Arthur Stockdale, he states that in Mexico City they are 
now considered somewhat of a rarity, though said to be common in 
Chiiuiahua, where however, little attention is paid tiiem. 

There is some evidence that they do not breed readily with nonuaily 
haired dogs, yet such crosses have been made, and curiously the result 
seems to be that about 50% of the young are naked or practically so, 
the other oC^t fully haired. Stockdale (1 91 7) records such a litter 
consisting of two puppies, one hairless, the other normal. Kohn 
(1911) records a mating of a Hairless Dog with a Fox-terrier, the four 
offspring of which comprised two naked and two completely-haired 
dogs. His microscopic study of the skin of the Hairless Dog indicates 
that its character is that of a young embryo's, whence it may l)e that 
the hairless character is merely the retention of the embryonic condi- 
tion, just as the short-nosed skull of the Japanese Lap-dog seems to 
be a case of the retention of the embryonic proportions of the skull. 

As to the origin of this breed, it is most likely a variant of the larger 
type of Indian Dog, in which the hairlessness is due to a retention of 
the embryonic condition of the skin, precluding hair development, 
just as the short-nosed breeds of dogs are the result of the failure of 
the facial bones to attain full growth. 

I have unfortunately been unable to ol)tain skulls for comparison. 



SmAII IxdiAx Dog or Techichi. 
Plate 1 0. 

1 788. Canis fainiliaris americanu-s Gmelin, Linnc's Syst. iiat.. ed. 13, 1 , 

pt. 1, p. 66 (in part). 

1792. Canis americanus -plancus Kerr, ,\mnial kingdom, 1, p. 136 (based on 

tlie Tecliiclii of Hernandez). 

1840. ?Canis aico Hamilton Smith, .Jardine's Xat. library. Mammalia, 10, 
p. 135, pi. 4, left-hand fig. 

1841 . ?Canis familiariti cxiyennensis BlainviUe, Osteographie. Atlas, pi. 7'. 
1867. Canis caraihaeus, hernandesii Fitzinger, Sitzb. K. akad. wiss., Wien, 

56. pt. 1, p. 498. 

1882. ?Cams gibbvs Duges, La natm-aleza, 5, p. 14, fig. 1-3. 



[Begin Page: Page 482] 

482 lu lletin: miseim of comparauve zoology. 

Chararttr.s-. — A small, light-limbed dog. of rather slender propor- 
tions, narrow delieate head, fine muzzle, erect ears, well-developed 
tail, which may have been close-haired. Colors black, l)lack and 
white, or perhaps l>ro\vnish or yellowish. 



DiMrihufiiin. — This was perhaps the dog of fox-like appearance 
noticed by many of the early explorers, yet it is difficult to indicate 
the limits of its former distribution. On the Atlantic seaboard, among 
the considerable quantity of skeletal remains examined, 1 have seen 
nothing that could be referred to such a dog; yet Brereton, who 
reached the Elizabeth Islands and coast of southern New England 
Avith Gosnold in 1()02, mentions "Dogs like Foxes, blacke and sharpe 
nosed" among the "Commodities" seen there. In the famous 
village site near JMadison'^ ille, southwestern Ohio, its bones occur 
and there are in the Peabody Museum similar bones from the south- 
west and Yucatan, believed equally to be pre-Columbian. Among 
the dog-skulls found with Peruvian burials the same type occurs, as 
well as skulls intermediate between this and other dogs, and so proba- 
bly representing mongrel individuals. Probably then this type of 
dog was spread over at least the central and southwestern part of 
North America and parts of northwestern South America. 

Noiitcticlciturc. — This is assumed to be the Techichi of the early 
Spanish accounts of Mexican dogs, though there is little doubt that 
two different animals as well as more than one breed of dog w-ere con- 
fused under this title by the early writers and systematists. It is of 
some importance, therefore, to examine their accoimts carefully since 
the case is somewhat complex and involves the identity of the AIco 
of early writers. Both Gmelin and Kerr based their names on the 
account of Recchi and Lynceus (1 651 , p. 466), who in turn refer to 
Hernandez's brief account (which they print), in the Historiae ani- 
malium et mineralium Novae Hispaniae, page 7. Hernandez who died 
in 1578, had visited Mexico, and in his enumeration of its animals 



includes three sorts of native dogs. Tine first of tliese is unquestion 
ably the '^Mexican Hairless Dog, and as he himself states, was the only 
one he saw personally ("caeteros vero neque conspexeram, neque 
adhuc eo[?. c. ad Europam] delates puto"). 

His account of the two other dogs is important and reads: — 
"Secundus Meliten.sibus canibus similis est, candido, nigro, ac fuluo 
colore varius, sed giberosus, gratusque iucunda quadam deformitate, 
ac capite velut ab humeris edito, quem Michuacanensem abora vnde 
est oriundus vocare solent. Tertius vero nuncupatus Techichi, 
Catulis similis est nostratibus, Indis edulis, tristi aspectu, ac caetera 



[Begin Page: Page 483] 

allf.n: noes of thk amkkkax ah()hi(;i\ks. 4,S:i 

vulsiiribus similis. Atque haec de canihus Xouac Hispaniac l)rcuitt>r 
dicta sunto." Translated freely, "The second is lik(> the Maltese 
dofjs, in color varied with white, black, and fulvous, but it is hump- 
backed and prized for this pleasing deformity, and a head that appears 
to grow from the shoulders. It is called the Michuacan dog from 
the place where it is native. The third sort of dog, howe\(T, is'^'called 
Techichi, and is like our Spaniels, but of sad countenance, though in 
other respects like ordinary dogs. It is eaten by the Indians. This 
then is briefly what I have to say of the dogs of Mexico." The 
Techichi apparently was in no wise peculiar as a small dog. The 
Michuacan animal, however, was hump-lmcked, without conspicuous 



neck, its colors white, black, and fulvous, "varius." In their elabo- 
ration of Hernandez's account, Recchi and Lynceus (1651 , p. 466) 
fail to distinguish between these two supposed dogs; at all events 
their figure (Plate 3, fig. 1 ) and description deal altogether with the 
hump-backed animal, of which they seem to have had some knowl- 
edge or probably a preserved specimen. They figure a female under 
the name 'Cmiis Mexicana' and the Mexican name Ytzcuinteporzotii, 
tJie first half of which signifies 'dog.' Buft'on, and later Gmelin, 
likewise failed to distinguish between Hernandez's second and third 
sorts of dogs, and the latter author in 1 788, combined the two under 
the name Aincricanus, with a brief diagnosis based on the figure of 
Recchi and L'^'^lceus, viz., "magnitudine i [/. e. of the breed mditaeiis], 
capite parvo, auribus pendulis, dorso curvato, cauda brevi." Under 
this name, Gmelin included: a. Ytzcuinteporzotii, or the Canis mexi- 
cana of Recchi and Lynceus and b. Techichi of Hernandez. Obviously 
the diagnosis applies to the hump-backed animal only, to which 
Buffon had already applied the- native name AIco, following Recchi 
and Lynceus. This name appears to have been of doubtful applica- 
tion to the common dog, but was used at tunes by later '^\Tite'^s to 
indicate the small native dog of Peru and Mexico. Kerr (1792, p. 136) 
endeavors to improve on Gmelin by distinguishing with Latin names 
the two varieties of the hitter's Canis americanus. He first trans- 
scribes the description and then distinguishes: "a. Fat AIco. — 
Canis americanus obesm" and "b. Techichi. — Ca/t/'^ americanus 
plancus," Tvdth descriptive accounts from Hernandez and his elobora- 
tors, corresponding to Gmeiin's " a " and " b." 

What then was this AIco? A study of Recchi and Lynceus's 



figure (Plate 3, fig. 1 ) and description seem to indicate cieariy tliat tliey 
liad in mind a Raccoon. Tliey describe its nose, forehead, and eye- 
brows as white, these markings evidently delimiting the dark face. 



[Begin Page: Page 484] 

4S4 Hri.l.KTIN: MISKIM OK COMI' AHATI VK ZOcil.OCY. 

wliilr tlu' peculiar aiul characteristic upward slope of the hack in the 
live animal is thus described; "Dorsum caineli instar gihhosum, post 
colhnn suhito ad pectus accliue, sed coxas \ersus dediue." The tail 
is said to he short, harely reachinji the heel, tlu' manunae six in num- 
ber. They further note its very fat belly, beautifully covered with 
thick black hair \aried with spots; feet and shanks whitish, claws 
strongly exserted. These characteristics recall the Raccoon more 
than any other animal. Tliere are, however, eight mammae in this 
animal, and the ears are not pendulous as described, but these dis- 
crepancies may be due to inaccuracy of observation, or the condition 
of the specimen (perhaps a preserved hide) which the authors seem to 
have had. The account quoted from Acosta (1590, p. 277) doubtless 
refers to the same animal and not to a dog. This author, in his 
Historia natural y moral de las Indias, writes : — "Verdaderos perros 
no los aula en Indies, sine unos semejantes a perrillos, que los Indies 
llaniauan AIco: y por su semejana a los (jue ha side Ueuados de 
Espana, tambien los llaman AIco: y son tan ainigos destos perrillos 
que se quitaran el comer, por darselo: y quandovan camino, los lleuan 
consigo acuestas, o en el seno." (Of real dogs there are none in the 



Indies, save certain animais resembiing iittie dogs, wliicli tine Indians 
caii Aico; and on account of tlieir resemblance to our dogs brought 
here from Spain, the Indians caii these Aico as well: and so fond are 
they of their iittie dogs that they deny themselves of food in order to 
give it to them; and when they go on a journey they carry the iittie 
dogs with them on their shoulders or in their arms). The Raccoon 
rather than a small dog seems to be indicated here, and the habit of 
carrying thein al)out on journeys would perhaps account for the 
present-day anomalous distribution of the small species of raccoon in 
Central America (Panama) and in the islands of Cozumel, Guade- 
loupe and New Providence. Acosta's story may also explain the 
transference of the name Aico to small dogs, though Philippi (1 886) 
says this means dog in the Quichua tongue. 

An early mention of the tame Raccoon is found in Hakluyt's Voy- 
ages, in A relation of the commodities of Nova Hispania, and the 
manors of the inhabitants, written by Henry Haw'^kes merchant, 
which lived five yeeres in the sayd countrey, written in 1572. He 
says: "Their dogs are all crooked backt, as many as are of the coun- 
trey breed, and cannot run fast: their faces are like the face of a pig 
or a hog, with sharpe noses." 

If Gmelin's name amcricanns be admitted as applying to a Raccoon 
it would antedate Wagler's name hcrnandczii (1831) for a Mexican 



[Begin Page: Page 485] 



allkn: dogs ov iiik amkhuan ah<)KI(;i.\ks. 4(S.") 

Raccoon. In vicav. however, of the inicertainty as to which form of 
Raccoon it should indicate, there seems to l)e no virtue in makinj; 
such a change at present. 

Later writers have tried to tli.scoxer living examph's of the original 
Alcowith small success. Hamilton Smith (1840, j). Li"), pi. 4, left- 
hand fig.) describes as Can is <ilro, what he supposed to r(;present this 
Itreetl, from a stutt'ed specimen in an exhibition of Mexican curiosities 
made by W. Bullock, and said then to be in the P'^gyptian Hall (British 
Museum). He says of it: "That enterprising traveller described it 
as of the wild race; yet, from its appearance, we at first considered it 
to be a Newfotmdiand puppy." The figure shows a snuill black and 
white dog with rather full-haired tail, clumsy build, and ears laid 
back. Of the mounted specimen, Hamilton Smith further writes: — 
" It was small, with rather a large head ; elongated occiput ; full muzzle; 
pendulous ears; having long soft hair on the body. In colour, it was 
entirely white, excepting a large black spot co\ering each ear, and 
part of the forehead and cheek, with a fulvous mark above each eye, 
and another black spot on the rump; the tail was rather long, well 
fringed, and white." This description, except for the penflulous ears 
might apply well enough to the type of .small dog here treated. How 
much of its appearance was due to the taxidermist's efforts is, how- 
ever, to be considered. It is even possible that it was after all only a 
spaniel, which, except for its short ears, it seems to resemble. 

What seems to have been a slightly deformed Indian Dog, is de- 



scribed and figured by Duges (1882) as a Clnilnualiua Dog (a term tliat 
is used by fanciers for a dwarf breed, witii erect ears). From liis 
figure of tine skuii, it is evident tinat \he animai was young. It was 
apparently rather smaii, iiad but tliree iower premolars (the first 
lacking), a rather heavy head, and long close-haired tail. The back 
seems to have been unduly arched but the head is represented as 
erect, and the posture quite different from that of a raccoon. The 
color was blotched black and wliite. The ears were cropped, but 
were assumed to h&ve been erect. So far as can be judged from 
Duges's account, this may have been a dog similar to the Techichi. 
He, however, supposed it to represent the Alco. 

The confusion of names has been added to by Cope (1 887) who 
examined three skulls of the so called Chihuahua Dog. He found 
a variable reduction in the number of teeth, correlated apparently 
with the loss of hair. The premolars were reduced to f or §, while the 
molars were §, I, and § respectively. In all, the inner cusp of the 
lower sectorial was lacking. On account of the reduced number of 



[Begin Page: Page 486] 

4S() lUI.I.KTIX: MISKIM OF {OMI'AH.vrn F. ZOOLOGY. 

inoliirs. and this (.liaractoi' of the sectorial. Cope refers this breed to 
his };eniis Ovsoihis (Cope, 1879, 1879a) hased on the Japanese Lap- 
dog, a<lding that " the species may be called Di/sodus gihhus,'" for 
" the Chihuahua dojj; is the Canis (/ihlnis of Hernandez." The animal 



to which Hernandez applied the adjective " (iihcrosits," however, was 
with iittie doubt a Raccoon. 

Skricfni RciiKiin.s-. — Among a great number of bones of Indian dogs 
examined, from moimds, burials, or refuse deposits in various parts of 
America, there occiu' skulls or fragments of jaws app)ertaining to a 
wholly different type of dog from the large varieties just described. 
The remains indicate a small light-limbed animal, with slender muzzle 
abruptly narrowed in front of the third premolar. Although the 
surface of the brain-case in adults is roughened for muscular attach- 
ment the sagittal crest does not develop till old age. All the teeth 
are small (upper carnassial 14-16.5 mm. in length), the nasals long, 
and the skull normal, in that it seems not shortened or broadened in 
any way, the teeth not crowded. A trans\erse line at the end of the 
palate falls about through the middle of the second molar. These 
dogs are probably the third variety of Hernandez, the Techichi or 
Small Indian Dog. Several skulls, more or less imperfect, from the 
Madisonville, Ohio, Milage site are referred to this breed, though 
their measurements are a very little larger than those of more southern 
specimens. They occur here together with bones of the large type of 
Indian Dog. An imperfect cranium (M. C. Z. 7,123) collected man\ 
years ago in McPherson's Cave, Virginia, by Lucien Carr, is apparently 
in every respect similar to a skull of this type from Pecos, N. M., 
obtained by Dr. A. V. Kidder in the course of excavating a village site. 
A similar but slightly smaller, though adult, skull from Pueblo exca- 
vations in the southwest is practically the same, as is also a skull of 
the Papago Indian Dog obtained by the late Dr. Edgar A. Mearns 
at Sonoyta, Sonora, while on the Mexican Boundary Survey. It is 
not fully adult, though of nearly mature dimensions. What seems to 



be a dog of this type is represented in tine Peabody Museum by a 
cranium and iiind leg-l)ones from Labna, Yucatan; tine rostrum is 
damaged and tine teetli lost except tine carnassial. Tine long slender 
limb-bones are in strong contrast with the short thick bones of the 
Short-nosed Indian Dog. 

Turning now to South America, the Museum has a cranium from 
Surinam, labeled: — Carib Indian Dog. It was received through the 
Boston Society of Natural History from the Wyman Collection, and 
was probably collected by Dr. F. W. Cragin, some fifty years ago 



[Begin Page: Page 487] 

ai,i-kn: dogs ok tiik amkukax auohiginks. 487 

Thoiij:;li it has ac(|uiiT(l the adult dentition, it is not old, and the 
temporal ridjics have not yet united to fonn a erest. A very similar 
skull from French Guiana is figured by HIainMlle (1 S41 ) imder the 
name Cdiii/'^faniiliari.s cducmicitsis, by which he stH'Uis to ha\ c intended 
to name the native dog. 

I am indebted to Dr. W. ('. Farrabee for a photograph, (Plate 5, 
fig. 2) which is assumed to illustrate this dog. It was secured by him 
while studying the Macusi tribe in southern British Guiana, and 
shows an old dog, and a puppy, accompanying a child of the tribe. 
The larger dog has a narrow head, and erect ears, the tips of '^\hich 
have been cropped, probably as a propitiation to evil spirits; the body 



is short in proportion to tine lean limbs, the tail (better seen in the 
picture of the puppy) is long, upcurxing, and like the body, short- 
haired. Dr. Farrabee writes that these dogs "are small, yellow and 
white, or brindle and white, and may be \ery much mixed with 
European dogs." Of their ancestry, however, there is no evidence, 
though the erect ears and slender proportions fa\or the supposition 
that they retain a measure of their aboriginal character. The expres- 
sion of the larger dog recalls the " tristi aspectu " of Hernandez's 
description of the Techichi. It is not unlikely that the small dogs 
found by the Jesuits among the Indians of the southern Antilles and 
parts of Colombia and Central America may ha\e l)een of the breed 
here described. 

Dr. Farrabee Vrites me further concerning some larger dogs which 
he saw among the Wanoai tribe " who occupy the Akarai Mountains, 
northern Brazil to southern British Guiana. This tribe, on the 
Brazil side had ncAcr seen white men before [his visit). They have 
the best dogs of all the tribes visited and they take the best care of 
them. These dogs are noted among the tribes a month's journey 
away. The'^- keep the dogs tied on raised platforms and allow them 
exercise morning and evening. The dogs are all black and white 
and of good size." A small photograph of these dogs shows a hound- 
like aspect and drooping ears. They are probably of European ori- 
gin and perhaps the same as the dogs mentioned by Bancroft (1 769, 
p. 140) who says: " The Dogs of Guiana seem to be of a species between 
the Hound and Land-Spaniel: their make is slender, their ears long 
and pendulous, with a blunt nose, and large mouth: their bodies 
are covered with long shaggy hair, generally of a fallow colour. They 



pursue and start the Game by the scent." 

1 am indebted to J. Rodway, Esq., of the Museum at Georgetown, 
British Guiana, for a brief note on the hunting-dog of the present-day 



[Begin Page: Page 488] 

4SS mi.i.KiiN: mi skim ok ( (»l\/!r.\H.\ii\ k vahh.ov.x. 

Imlians of timt rountry. Ht' ronsiders that it is of" umlouhted Eiiro- 
pi-an origin, "has no particuhir fharactors," and "coidd he niatcluil 
in any h)t of nionjirels. It is j'^enorally rather small with a pointed 
nuizzle. foxy U«ikinjj, and kept hungry to prevent laziness." Tlu 
"foxy" appearance is somewlmt typical of the native breeds of smaller 
Indian dogs, a result of the fine muzzle, ample erect ears, and droopiuir 
tail, traits which seem still traceable among these mongrels of the 
modern Guiana Indians. 

Among a .series of dog-skulls (belonging to the U. S. N. M.) from 
ancient burials in Peru are two which in their small size and slender 
proportions seem referable to the Techichi. Both arc fully adult, 
with a well-developed sagittal crest on the interparietal, extending 
forward in the larger skull on to the parietal suture. As will be seen 
from the table of measurements appended these skulls are a very 
little larger, with slightly shorter nasals, as compared with the other 
skulls whose dimensions are given. It is possible that this is due to 
some admixture with the short-nosed breeds. Nevertheless the skulls 



in question are quite different from tine iatter in their siender and 
narrow outiines, and imsliortened tootli-row. 

Xo doui)t, did we know tine externai cliaracters of tlie dogs wiiose 
skuiis are iiere iisted, it wouid be possibie to recognize more tlian 
one breed. Tlnus tine OInio individuais are a trifie iarger in dimensions 
tlian tliose of tine Soiitliwest and tine Peruvian dogs again are a iittie 
iarger. Yet aii are cieariy of tlie same generai type. 

A comparison of tine skuiis and measurements of tliese specimens 
witli tliose of the Canis palustris of Riitimeyer from the Swiss Lake- 
Dwellings of late Neolithic to Bronze times in Europe, reveals a rather 
close correspondence which is probably more than accidental, and 
may even indicate a derivation from some common Asiatic stock at a 
\i'v\- earlV period. The type of .small dog of the Swiss Lake-Dwellings 
was one apparently of general distril)ution in southern Europe during 
the Neolithic time, and Woldrich (ISSGa) has identified it as far north 
as Denmark in the kitchen-middens. It was apparently, on the 
average, of wider zygomatic V)readth, but otherwise its dimensions 
correspondetl very closely. This evidence favors the Mew that a dog 
of this type was one of the earliest to be domesticated and was of wide 
distribution in an early period of human culture. Remains of a 
larger type of dog, C. inter mediu'^'i, are also wide-spread in late Neo- 
lithic or Bronze culture layers of middle Europe, and correspond 
l)roadly to the larger type of Indian dog, a parallelism that is sug- 
gestive of the common origin of the large and the small types of dogs 
in Europe and America, probably from Asiatic prototypes. 



[Begin Page: Page 489] 



allkn: i)()(;s ok tiii: amkhuan auokiginks. 



4S9 



Early Accounts. — Hernandez disposes of the Techichi in few words, 
as being tine tliird sort of dog lie knew to be found in Mexico. It 
must have become scarce by his time (about L57S) as he had not seen 
it himself but describes it thus: — " CatuHs similis est nostratibus, 
Indis eduHs, tristi aspectu,ac caetera vulgaribus simiUs" (similar to 
our spaniels, eaten by the Indians, of melancholy visage, but other- 
wise like the common dogs). J. Jonstonus, Avriting in 1657, includes 
in his account of dogs, a transcription of Hernandez's passage as to 



[Begin Page: Page 490] 

490 Hri.i.Kiix : miseim ok coMrAUAin k zociLOGY. 

tlie three sorts of dogs in Mexieo. Ho adds further that the Indians 

C^f Co7,umel Ishind ate these dogs as the Spaniards do rabbits. Those 

intended for this purpose were castratefl in order to fatten them. 

CUivigero, the Historian of early Mexico, wrote that the breed was 
extinct in his time, due, as he supposes, to the Spaniards' having pro- 
vided their markets with them in lieu of sheep and cattle. 



Possibly this breed of dog is the one mentioned in l)e Soto's relation 
of his march through Florida. At one place the cacique of the \ illagC^ 
sent him a present including "many conies and partridges. . . .many 
dogs. . . which were as much esteemed as though they had been fat 
sheep." At another place, "the Christians being seen to go after 
dogs, for their flesh, which the Indians do not eat, they gave them 
three hundred of these animals." Again, at a small Indian village 
called Etocali, the expedition got "maize, beans, and little dogs, which 
were no small relief to the people." 

As late as 1 805, Barton (1 805, p. 1 2) who had made special inquiry 
of William Bartram, as to the dogs of the Florida Indians, quotes 
him, that the latter had in addition to the larger dogs, a smaller breed, 
about the size of a fox, which probably was of the type vmder discus- 
sion. 

It is probably this dog, if not also the short-nosed variety-, that 
figures largely in the mythology of the '^layas of Yucatan. Among 
several representations of the dog in the Mayan codices are seen short- 
nosed and long-nosed heads, but whether these really indicate differ- 
ent breeds of dogs or different artists that made them cannot be 
determined. All are shown with erect, sometimes with cropped ears, 
a tail that is of medium length, usually' shaggy, and recurved. Black 
patches are commonly represented on the body, and the eye of the 
dog often centers in a black area. Seler (1890) speaks of its use as a 
sacrificial animal in Yucatan, sometimes in place of a human being. 
Placed in the grave, the dog carried its master's soul across the "('hi- 



cunauhapan" or nine-fold flowing stream. According to Sahagun, 
.some were black and white, others dark red, and there were short- 
haired and long-haired dogs, but he does not state whether the small 
and the large types of dogs each had short-haired and long-haired 
varieties. A brief summary of the significance of the dog in the 
religious life of the Mayas is given by Tozzer and Allen (1 91 0, p. 359). 



[Begin Page: Page 491] 

AI>LK\: DOCJS OF TilK AMKUKAX AM(>UI(;|.\ KS. 491 

Hare-Indian Doc. 
Plate 1, i\g.2. 

1829. Canis lagopm Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Amer., 1 , p. 78, p\. 5 (not 
Canis lagopm Linne, 1758, q. e. Alopex). 

1867. Canis domesHcm, lagopm FitzingeT,Sitzh K. akad. wiss. Wien 56 nt 1 
p. 407. > > I > 

Canis famiUaris orthotm lagopm ReicYvenhsich, Rogn. anim., pt. 1 , p. 13. 

Characters. — A small, slender dog, a\ ith erect ears and bushy tail 
feet broad and well-haired. Color white with dark patches 

Disfribuiion. — Formerly found among the Hare Indians and other 
tribes that frequented the borders of Great Bear Lake and the banks 



of the Mackenzie River. 

Description. — Tliis seems to liave been a smaii dog, of tine Tecliiclii 
type. Riclnardson, wlno gave a figure and description of it from first- 
iiand acquaintance, cliaracterizes it as sliglitly larger tlian a fox but 
smaller than a coyote, and apparently of rather slender proportions 
The head was small '^'^-ith sharp muzzle, erect thickish ears, somewhat 
oblique eyes; the tail bushy and sometimes carried curled forward 
over the right hip, though tliis does not appear in Richardson's fi-ure- 
foot broad and well-haired. He describes an individual as having the 
face, muzzle, belly, and legs white; a dark patch over the eye, and on 
the back and sides, larger patches of dark blackish grav or lead color 
mixed with fawn and white. Ears white in front, the backs yellowish 
gray or fawn; tail white beneath and at the tip. 

Notes.- It seems probable that this small breed was lost in the 
early part of the last century. At all events, writers subsequent to 
Richardson do not seem to have met with it, and those that mention 
It, seem to have confused it with the Common Indian Doo- Thus 
B. R. Ross (1861) and :Macfarlane (1905, p. 700) clearly had'^^in mind 
a different animal; and a skull sent by the latter to the U. S. N M 
'^slagopus (from Fort Simpson, Mackenzie River) is a large dog, 
evidently the Common or Larger Indian Dog. Hamilton Smith 
(1840, p. 131) takes his description in part from Richardson and 
mentions a pair of these dogs as then living in the Zoological Societv's 
Cxardens at London. Audubon and Bachman likewise are indebted 
to Richardson for their account, though their figure, bv J. W. Audu- 
bon, IS said to be from a stuffed specimen, perhaps one of those pre'^'i- 



[Begin Page: Page 492] 

492 uillktin: miskim of coMrARAiiM-: zoology. • 

ou.sly lixinj: in the Zoological Society's (Tjirdcns. The (iiincnsicMIs 
they gi\e however, seem rather large. 

Richardson says further that it was used solely in the cha.se and 
was prohably too small to ser\ e as a Imrden carrier. Its voice was a 
wolf-like howl, hut at some unusual sight it would make a singular 
attempt at l)arking, commencing with a peculiai' growl and ending 
in a prolonged howl. 

Here may be mentioned what seems to he an unknoAvn or vanished 
l)reed of dogs as indicated in the account of Frobisher's voyage to 
Arctic America in loTT. At the present Frobisher Bay, in south- 
eastern Baffin Land, the expedition found in addition to the large 
dogs used for sledging, a smaller breed, which was apparently used 
only as food, and allowed the freedom of the skin tents of the Eskimos. 
The historian of the expedition writes that they "found since by 
experience, that the lesser sort of dogges they feede fatte, and keepe 
them as domesticall cattell in their tents for their eating, and the 
greater sort ser\e for the use of drawing their sleds." At York Sound, 
the same writer relates that on going ashore to examine "certaine 
tents of the countrey people," they "found the people departed, as it 
should seeme, for feare of their comming. But amongst sundry strange 
things which in these tents they found, there was rawe and new killed 



flesh of unknowen sorts, with dead carcas.ses and bones of dogs" 
(Hakluyt's Voyages, Everyman's Library, ed. 5, p. 212, 215). Concern- 
ing this "lesser sort of dogges," nothing further seems to be known, 
whether they were a dwarf variety of the Eskimo dog, or as seems 
likely, a small breed similar to those of the Hare Indians or of other 
tribes of the mainland. 

FuEGi.\N Dog. 
Plate 4, fig. 2. 

Characters. — Size small, as large as a terrier, muzzle slender, ears 
large, delicate, and erect, body and limbs well-proportioned, shoulders 
higher than rump; tail long, drooping, slightly recurved at the tip 
and well-fringed; feet webbed; color uniform grayish tan, or often 
with patches of black or tan, and areas of white; inside of the mouth 
dark-pigmented. 

Distrihutiop. — Found chiefly among the "Canoe Indians" — Yah- 
gans and Alacalufs — of the Fuegian Archipelago, from Cape Horn to 
Beagle Channel, and northwestward, probably at least to the western 
part of Magellan Strait. 



[Begin Page: Page 493] 



allkn: docs of thk amkkicax auokiginks. 4y;> 



Deticriptiotta. — The best account of the Fuejiian Dog is that given 



I)y d'Herculais (1SS4) of two Yahgan Dogs l)rouglit hack to France 
by Dr. Hyades of the Mission scientifique au Cap Horn (expedition 
de la Romaxche), in 1883. These were obtained as puppies from 
the Yahgans at Orange Ba>' and grew up to be tame and affectionate 
dogs. They arc described as small but well-proportioned, remarkable 
for their large pointed and erect ears, and xery sharp slender muzzles. 
The color-pattern is very variable, often a uniform grayish tan recall- 
ing the jackal; again, the body is marbled with extensive black or tan 
areas on a wiiite ground. The feet are plainly webbed. The two 
dogs above referred to, were said to measure, the male and female 
respectively: — height at shoulder, 49 and 44 cm.; length from tip of 
nose to root of tail, 80 and 72 cm.; length of tail, 26 and 23 cm. 

External Mcamirements. — Dechambre (1891) in a note on these 
same dogs, gives the following dimensions, ex'identIV of a female:- - 

Scapuloischial length 52 cm. 

Height at shoulder 41 " 



Height at rump 39 " 



Height at axilla 25 



Thoracic perimeter 58 " 



Distance between ears 9 " 



" " inner corners of eyes 4.5 " 

« " outer " " " 8.5 " 

Breadth of forehead 1 1 " 

Length of head 22 

« muzzle 9 

Interorbita) width at outer corner of eye 9.5 " 

The further description by Dechambre suppiements that of d'Her- 
cuiais based on the same individual. He describes its fox-iike head 
with pointed muzzle, broad forehead, its erect and high-set ears, 
usually directed forward, very mobile; eyes slightly oblique. The 
body is large, limbs slender, the neck short and powerful, the 
shoulders slightly higher than the rump; tail bushy and carried 
high. Pelage with a short under fur, pied black and white, passing 
to slaty at the throat, clouded with tan; over each eyebrow a white 
spot with a few fulvous hairs. The coat has the appearance of a 
domesticated animal in its pattern. 

Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle, in a letter to Hamilton Smith (1840, 
p. 21 4) describes these dogs of the 'Canoe Indians' as resembling 
" terriers, or rather a mixture of fox, shepherd's dog, and terrier. All 



[Begin Page: Page 494] 

494 lui.i.F.rix: mi skim ok ( omi'ali.mix k /.(xm.ocv. 

tliut 1 rxaininoci luul lilack root's to tlieir iiu)utlis, liut tlurr was luiuli 
variety in tlie eolours and degrees of coarseness of tlieir coats. * * * 
Manx Fiiejiian (li>j;;s are spotted and not a few luive Wuv sliort liair, 
liut all resend)h'a foxahoiit the head. * * * ()uv l)rouj'^ht from Tierra 
del Fuego was whitt> -with one black spot, and very handsome; his size 
Avas ahout that of a terrier, his coat short but fine, and his ears extremely 
delicate ami long, although erect ;" the nur/zle also is long, the tail 
rough and drooping. 

Skull and Liiiih-lnjitca. — In a recent i)apcr. Professor Lonnherg 
(1 91 9) has given what appear to l)e the first published figures and 
measiu'ements of the limb-hones and skull of this dog. His speci- 
men was a skeleton obtained by Xordenskjiild in 1 89o-9G during his 
Tierra del Fuego expedition. As this author demonstrates, the skull 
is that of a true dog, and shows no relationship with the native canid, 
Pfitudcilopr.x liicoidrs. A comparison of the cranial measurements 
with those given for the Techichi of North and South America, shows 
a \ery close approximation, amotmting almost to identity. The 
first lower molar in the Fuegian Dog seems smaller, how'^ever, 16.5 
mm. in Lonnberg's specimen against 17.o to 18.5 mm. in the more 
northern dogs. For better comparison, the following measurements 
of the Fuegian Dog are reproduced from this paper (Lonnherg, 1919, 
p. 11):- 



Condylo-incisive length 1-41 mm. 

Length of palate 71 .3 " 

Front of canine to back of w- 64 " 

Length of l)remolar'^ 15.2" 

Length of upper premolar-molar series. ... 51 " 

Width of palate outside ?«' 52.6 " 

Zygomatic width SI 

Jvcngth of nasals meslally 46 " 

Length of lower nil 16 . 5 " 

Length of hllmeras 105 " 

Length of ulna 125 

Length of femur 132 

Length of tibia 139 

Lxclf. — The Fueglan Dog Is active and strong In proportion to Its 
small size; quiet, faithful to Its master, and able to withstand much 
privation; vigilant and extremely "<ly. It Is capable of barking like 



the European dogs. 

They are of invaluable .service to their masters In hunting, particu- 
larly In the pursuit of otters {Llltra fdlna), which are as.slduously 



[Begin Page: Page 495] 

AM>K\: l)<)(;s or THK AMKKKAN AMOHKIIXKS. 49o 

sought. lluU't'd FIt/roy wrote that "It Is \\(>ll asc-crtalllcd that the 
oldest Avonloll of the tribe ar(> sacrificed to tile cannibal appetites of 
their countrymen rather than destroy a sIngh' dog. 'Dogs,' say they 
N-atch otters; old women are good for nothing.'" They are vigilant 
watch-<logs, barking furiously at a stranger. Their small size, and 
conse<juent adaptability as canoe companions, are no doubt the chief 
cause for their preference by the Canoe Indians of the west Patagonlan 
Archipelago, over the larger dogs found among the so-called Foot 
Indians of the mainland and the eastern and Inland parts of TIerra 
<lcl Fuego. 

Remarks. — In the absence of specimens for comparison. It Is not 
altogether clear that the P'ueglal\ Dog can be satisfactorily distin- 
guished except In minor particulars from the TechlchI or .\lco of Peru 
and Mexico. Molina apparently thought It Identical. In general It 
appears closely similar, but perhaps of more slender build, a bushier 
tall with recurved tip, well-palmated feet and a shaggier coat, though 
F'^ltzroy speaks of variation In this last character. 



In his Bibliography of the Fuegian tribes. Cooper (1 91 7, p. 1 86) 
has summarized the references to dogs in the literature referring to 
these people. As early as 1557, or perhaps 1553, the Chonos at the 
northern end of the Chilian Archipelago, were credited Avith having 
dogs, as appears from Goicueta on the authority of Cortes Hojea. 
The first mention of dogs in the Strait of '^Magellan appears to be 
that of Narbrough, who in 1 670, found the natives of the Elizabeth 
Islands \u possession of large mongrel dogs of several colors. He 
compared them to the race of Spanish dogs he had found among the 
Patagonians of Port Julian. Probably these were not of native stock. 
Twenty-six \ears later de Gennes saw five or six small dogs among the 
Alacalufs of Port Famine. The Manekenkn met by the first Cook 
expedition in 1 769 at Good Success Bay, southeast end of Tierra del 
Fuego, had dogs about two feet high with sharp ears; they all l)arked. 
The small dog here described is apparently found among the so-called 
Canoe Indians of the western archipelago, the Yahgans and Alacalufs, 
the most southerly tribes of men in the world. 

SIIOHT-XOSED IXDIAX DoG. 

Plates 6, 11. 

1885. Pachycyon robustus J. A. Allen, Mem. M. C. Z., 10, 13])p., 3 pis. 
1885. Ccmis ingae vertagus Nehring, Sitzb. Gesellsch. naturf. freunde Berlin, 
p. 5-13 (not Canis fann'liaris rertaguf^ Linne, Syst. nat., 12th ed., 1766, 1, p. 
57. 



[Begin Page: Page 496] 

490 BII.I.KTIN: MISEIM OV lOMI'AHATIVK Z()(il,OGY. 

Character.'!. — A stoutly huilt dog, the size of a small terrier, with 
erect ears, short heaxy muzzle, hijih forehead, short hody aud limbs, 
well-<leveloped tail. 

The color seems to have been black aud white; sometimes more 
uniformly black, or yellowish with dark blotches. 

The skeleton is stoutly proportioned, the limb-l)ones short and 
thick, the humerus with a very small or no olecranal perforation. 
The sagittal crest is chiefly developed at the occiput. Correlated 
with the slight reduction of the maxillary bones, and the widening 
of the palate, is the fact that the last molar is placed just in advance 
of a transverse line through the posterior boundary of the palate. 

Di-tftribntiou. — Skeletal remains of this peculiar small dog have 
been found in Virginia in a superficial cave-deposit, as well as in the 
shell-mounds of San Nicolas Island on the coast of southern California. 
A well-preserved dried or mummified example was lately discovered 
by Mr. S. J. Guernsey in a burial antedating the Cliff Dwellers, in 
the Marsh Pass region of Arizona; and Reiss and Stiibel have dis- 
covered its mummified remains in the prehistoric necropolis of 
Ancon, Peru (see Nehring, 1884b). In the M. C. Z. is a humerus 
lacking the epiphyses, of a young specimen from Pecos, New Mexico, 



obtained by Dr. A. V. Kidder. Tlnese iocaiities may i)e taken as 
iimiting tine known extent of its distribution. 

Notes. — In 1 885, Dr. J. A. Allen described as a new genus and 
species Pachycyon rohusius, an extinct type of dog from Ely Cave, 
Lee County. Virginia, l)asing his account upon a pelvis, a femur, a 
tibia, a scapula, and a humerus of which he publishes excellent illustra- 
tions. These bones were obtained in the course of excavating the 
superficial layer of earth on the cave-floor, and though it is not certain 
exactly at what point they were found, no excavations deeper than a 
foot were made. Remains of Indian occupation were numerous, and 
other bones were obtained in the cave. There is nothing to indicate 
great age in the type-specimens (M. C. Z. 7,091); indeed the bones 
are quite fresh in appearance, only slightly discolored with earth. 
They are chiefl}- notable for their small .size and rather heavy ungrace- 
ful proportions, while the humerus is particularly marked on account 
of its lacking the usual perforation over the middle of the epicondyle. 
This perforation is almost always present in Eurasian dogs, as well as 
in coyotes and wolves. No further light has since been shed on the 
nature of this animal nor have any parts of its skull been found. 

•Vmong the remarkable discoveries made by Mr. S. J. Guernsey in 
tile course of archaeological exploration in the Marsh Pass region of 



[Begin Page: Page 497] 



ALI.LN: DOOS of Till-: A.MKKU an AliOliU.IXKS. 4'.t7 



Arizona for tin- Fcaixxiy Museum, were tine dessieated remains of 
two (.logs witli Inuman buriais of an age apparently antedating tlie 
culture of the Cliti' Dwellers. One of these dogs is small, about the 
size of a Fox-terrier l)ut more compactly and heavily built, with a 
shorter head, erect ears, and longer tail. It still shows a l)lack and 
white pattern, with a narrow median white line from nose to fore- 
head, a white chin, throat, and i)elly, a white collar, white feet, and 
tail tip. ]\luch of the body is black. In the length of the limb-l)ones 
and pelvis as nearly as can be detennined from careful study of the 
dried and mummified specimen, it corresponds exactly with Fachy- 
cyon. By making incisions through the dried tissue at the elbow, it 
was possible to lay bare the olecranal cavity above the joint where 
the large perforation is usually present. It was found that in the 
right humerus a small perforation was present, about 3 mm. in diam- 
eter, while in the left humerus there were merely two small pores side 
by side. The animal was young, still retaining a milk incisor, and so 
it is likely that had it been as old an individual as the one whence the 
type-bones of Pachycyon were derived, these foramina would have 
ossified completely, perhaps leaving, as in the type-humerus, a shallow 
pit in the posterior side of the olecranal fossa, as an indication of the 
fomier perforation. So complete is the correspondence of the bones 
of Pachycyon with those of this prehistoric dog of Arizona that they 
may be unhesitatingly pronounced those of a similar if not identical 
breed of Indian dog. 

Xot less interesting is a comparison of the humerus of Pachycyon 
with a humerus figured by Xehring (ISS-fb, Plate 1 1 8, fig. 4, -la) from 
a mummified dog exhumed Avith human-mummies in the ancient 



necropolis of Ancon, Peru. In measurements, there is practical 
identity as shown in the following table (the measurements of the 
Ancon humerus are taken directly from Xehring's figure, of natural 
size) : — 

Pachycj'on Ancon 

Greatest length of humerus 97 mm. 97 mm. 

Greatest diameter through head of humerus 31 .5 29.5 

Transverse 21 24 

Traasverse diameter of distal end of same 25 25 

Xehring's figure shows substantially the same type of thick stout 
humerus, and as he remarks, has the further peculiarity of lacking 
any trace of perforation of the olecranon fossa. It should be added 
that the humerus, shown in his figure is nevertheless very slightly 



[Begin Page: Page 498] 

498 m I.I.KTIN: MISKI M OK (OMI'AKATIVK ZOOLOGY. 

more bowed than that of the type of Paehyeyon, ami in his opinion 
the Pernvian Do'^ correspon(K'(l eh)sely to a European Turnspit or 
Daehshund, wlience he ealls it Caiiifi liu/dc rcrfogu.s-. The figures of 



the skull of the same speeimen likewise show an apparent similarity 
in outline and proportions to that of the Arizona mummy. 

There seems thus to he no doul)t that Porhi/ri/on rohufttihs is after 
all only a breed of dog- cultivated by the Indians of the southern 
parts of North America and of Peru. It is therefore no longer to be 
thought of as a problematical manunal of the Pleistocene. 

Among the dog-bones obtained by the Tniversity of California's 
investigations of the Indian shell-momids on San Nicolas Island, off 
the coast of southern California, are two crania nearly identical in 
measurements with the INIarsh Pass specimen that appear to repre- 
sent this .same small, short-nosed dog. They are characterized by 
their broad brain-cases, spreading zygomata, Avide palates, shortened 
rostra, and small teeth. In profile the dorsal outline of the brain- 
case is gently rounded, not Hat. The shortness of the rostrum does 
not amount to real defonnity howcAcr, for the lower jaw closes nor- 
mally into its place and the premolars are not markedly crowded, 
though p'^ is turned at an angle of nearly 50° from the axis of the skull 
to adapt its position to the sudden narroAV'ing of the skull at this point. 
Premolars 1 and 2 are normal in position, and there is a short diastema 
between p'^ and the canine. The ossification seems particularly 
heavy, yet though old, neither skull has developed a sagittal crest 
except at the interparietal region. In the dried mummy from Marsh 
Pass, the shortened nose and elevated forehead give a characteristic 
appearance to the head which is evident in these crania as well. No 
limb-bones that can be assigned to this dog, have appeared among the 
Californian collections. In both crania the opening of the posterior 



nares is narrow, and a transverse line drawn at riglit angies to tine 
craniai axis at tine posterior end of tine paiate faiis beliind tine iast 
moiar, indicating deviation from tine nonnal condition. 

Tine following skull-measurements show close agreement. One of 
the Californian crania (iwhs) lacks any trace of the alveoli of vi- 
which are partly- broken and partly resorbed. The first premolar is 
wanting also. The proportions of the maxilla are, however, practi- 
cally the same in both specimens. The Ancon specimen is figured 
by Nehring (1884b) of natural size and the mea.surements are taken 
from this figure. It too lacks the first upper premolar, and in e\ery 
respect confonns to the appearance of the other crania. 



[Begin Page: Page 499] 



alf.kn: docs of TIIK AMKKUAN AHOKIGIXKS. 



499 



MtMsiimiK'iils<(l'tho Skull 



Greatest length, nccii)utto median incisor 



(alveolus) 



Greatest length, edge of foramen magnum to 



median incisor 



Median incisor to edge of paiate 



" " orbit (anterior edge) 



m- (aiveoius) 



Canine " m- " 



Premolars '"'^ (alveoli) 



Length of premolar * 



Molars '"= (alveoli) .- 



Width of palate outside //;• 



" " " " qA r 



Zygomatic width 



Mastoid width 



Width of occij)ital condyles 



Nasals, length 



Peru: 



A Ill-Oil 

Ul 

55 
72 
59 

16 
16.5 

Ari/.: 

Mursli 

Pass 

?132 

71.5 
60 
22 
16 

39 



16.355 
Calif. 



138 138 

10.35« 
Calif. 

123 

68 
54 
69 
59 
20 

16 
56 
42 
87 
54 
30 

121 

68 
54 

17 



56.5 



39 



85 



53 



31 



41 



In addition to tine limb-measurement. s iriven on p. 497, the Arizona 
mummy gi\es the following: — total length from tip of nose to tip of 
tail following curve of back, 70o (circa); tail about 195; ulna 120 
(circa); carpus to end of longest claw 90; ear about 60-70 mm. long 
including hair; tail 195; femur 10(1 icircn); til)ia lUi (circa)- hind 
foot 122. 

Remark-. s. — Although this t\pe of dog seems to have been wide- 
spread among the aborigines of southern North America and north- 
eastern South America, it appears to ha\e quite disappearerl and is 
not clearly identifiable in any of the accounts of the early writers. 
Mr. Guernsey's discovery of a well-preserved mummy in a burial of 
considerable age in Arizona, has confirmed my previous identification 
of the Virginia bones of Pachycyon with those of Nehring's short- 
limbed dog-mummy of Ancon. The cranium is characterized by its 
breadth and stoutness, its shortened snout and high forehead, gently 
convex dorsal profile of the brain-case, and the small teeth (upper 



carnassial 16-17 mm.). The Calif ornian crania agree substantiaiiy 
in every detaii. Probabiy tliis is tine same dog tliat Moore (1907, 
p. 423) discoxered in Indian mounds on Crystal River, west Florida, 
of which Lucas observed, " the front of cranium of carnivore and jaws. 



[Begin Page: Page 500] 

.")00 iui.letin: .miskim of comparative zoology. 

are from the same animal, the short-faced dog something like a bull- 
terrier that seems to have been a faVorite with the Indians of the 
southwest". 

Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog. 

Plate 12. 

1885. Canis ingae molossoides Nehring, Sitzb. Gesellsch. naturf. freunde 
Berlin, p. 5-13. 

Characters. — Similar to the Short-nosed Indian Dog but with even 
shorter facial bones, an undershot lower jaw, broader zygomata and 
posterior narial passage. The increased shortening of the face causes 
a slightly more elevated forehead. The color seems to have been 
yellowish or whitish, marked or clouded with dark brown. 

Distribution. — This Dog is known only from the Peruvian High- 



lands, where its remains liave been found witli ancient buriais of tine 
aborigines at Ancon and Pacliacamac. 

Sknii-Cliaractcrs. — A comparison of six skuiis from Peru (ioaned by 
tlie U. S. N. ]M.) witli those of the Short-nosed Dog of North America, 
leaves little doubt that the Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog is derived from 
the latter, perhaps through some sort of cross-breeding, possibly as 
an occasional result of a particular cross, or through the dominance 
of its peculiarities in cross-bred animals. In most respects, the skulls 
of both are essentially alike, but the shortening of the rostral portion 
in the present breed is more pronounced, resulting in an undershot 
lower jaw. Yet the reduction of the maxillaries is not so extreme as to 
cause very great crowding of the premolars as in our Bull-dogs or the 
Pekinese Lap-dogs. Thus in two out of six crania, the third premolar 
is set almost transversely to the long axis of the skull, but in the 
others it retains about the usual relation. The second premolar, in 
two cases, is turned inward at more than the usual angle. In only 
one of the six skulls is the first upper premolar missing, and here on the 
left side only. 

The opening of the posterior nares is very wide in comparison with 
the common Short-nosed Dog, and the zygomatic arches are broader. 
In none of the six skulls do the temporal ridges unite to form a median 
crest except at the occiput along the interparietal bone. On account 
of the shortening of the facial I'^ones, the forehead is high, with a deep 
and broad groove medially. A further result of this shortening is 
the greater upward turn of the palate, best seen when the crania are 



[Begin Page: Page 501] 



allkn: dogs of the amkhkax aucjkiginks. 



501 



on a flat surface. The palate of the Pug-nosed Dog, makes an angle 
with the table of about 27° against about 1 5° in the case of the longer- 
nosed breed. The same rugose surface of the brain-case, the heaviness 
i>f hone and the thickened prominences at each side of the posterior 
narial openings, characteristic of the Inca Dog, are seen in this breed 
as well. 

No limb-bones have been obtained that can be referred to this dog, 
but it is likely that they were short and thick like those of the related 
breed. 

The following table gives dimensions of the six skulls in the U. S. 
X. ]\l. and is interesting for comparison M'ith those of the Short-nosed 
Indian Dog. 

Measurements of the Skulls 

U.S. N. M. 

172,885 172,883 172, 



172,887 172,884 176,307 



Occipitorostral length (excluding 



incisors) 



Basal length 



Palatal length 



Orbit to tip of premaxillary 



Upper tooth-row 



(alveoli) 



Front of canine to back of molar '^ 



(crowTis) 



Front of canine to back of molar '^ 



(alveoli) 



Length of premolar* (crown) 



(alveolus) 



" " molars'^~2 (crowns) 



" " (alveoli) 

Lower tooth-row (alveoli) 

Zygomatic width 

Breadth of occipital condyles 

124 

104 

60 

47 

64 

60 

49 

16 

15 

16.5 

16.5 

91 
27 



53 



16 



15 



16.5 



15.5 



138 



121 



65 



49 



138 



125 



67 



52 



142 

119 



67.5 

53 

68 

57 

15.5 

14.5 

15.5 

14 

61 

58 
16. 
15 
17. 
15. 

69 



58 



57 

17.5 

16 

102 

27 

109 
30 

94 
29 

28 

145 

125 

66 

53 



69 



56.5 
16.5 
15 
17 

16.5 
81 
102 
31.5 



Remarks. — The existence of this breed of aboriginai dogs with 
shortened face and undershot, buii-dog-iike jaw, was first discoxered 
by Reiss and Stiibei in the course of their investigation of the necro- 
polis of Ancon, Peru. Nehring (1 885) published an account of their 
discovery and gave the Latin name Canis ingac molossoides to the 



[Begin Page: Page 502] 

502 Hn.l.KTIN: MISKIM OK ( ()M1'AK.VII\ K 7.()OI.()(iV. 

liri'ftl. At first hut a sintjii' spt'ciiiirn was foiuul among numerous 
other dog remains, but further search brought a few more to Hght, 
and more recently the Yale-National (ieographie Society Expedition 
has re<'overed several skulls, from Huaeho and Pachacamac. 

The presence of this pug-nosed dog among the ancient Peruvians 
is doubly interesting, not only in that this variation should have 



occurred here, apparently (|uite independent of similar cases in the 
Old World, but in that it siiould have l)een preserved, whether through 
accident, or as supposed, through purposeful selection. Such a 
shortening of the face through the imperfect development of the bones 
of the rostrum is found occasionally in other domesticated mammals. 
The short -faced Cheshire Hogs and similar breeds furnish like in- 
stances of the selection and preser\ation of this mutation, which 
appears to be definitely heritable. Among undomesticated species, 
the case of a Em-opean Fox is recorded by Donitz (1S()9) in which the 
rostrum was shortened abnormallx-, producing a bull-dog-like appear- 
ance, with undershot jaw. The second and third premolars of the 
upper jaw were opposite the third and fourth respectively of the lower 
jaw, while the upper canine fitted into a space between the first and 
second lower premolars. Schmitt (19()8) agrees with Studer (1901) 
that such cases are due to the retention of embryonic conditions but 
<'onsiders them to be a result of domestication. This, however, is 
not necessarily the case, as the above instance shows. The case of a 
"bull-dog-headed calf" is recorded by Warren (1910) as having ap- 
peared as a ".sport" variation. 

Notwithstanding the comparatively high cultural development of 
the Incas, it may be doubted whether they piu'posely bred these dogs 
for their peculiarity of face. Quite as likely the anomaly arose, 
perhaps as a frequent result of cross-breeding between certain of the 
other canine races, or as a local abnormality, which as a Mendelian 
character, frequently cropped out in chance crosses. This may be 
indicated by the apparent raritV of this type of dog in the Ancon 
burials, and by the considerable variation in slight details of the form 



of the skull, as If no special type were bred for. 

An Interesting anomaly of an opposite nature Is worth recording In 
this connection, namely that of a Jackal shot by Dr. J. C Phillips In 
Arabia (M. C. Z. 15,872) In which the under jaw has failed to reach 
Its normal length and Is overshot by the upper jaw. The lower canine 
closes behind the upper Instead of anterior to It as In normal cases. 



[Begin Page: Page 503] 

AI.I.Kx: n()(;s ok tllk amkkkax ahoklclnks. )();? 

Summary. 

Recent clurftll studies of tile tretll Indicate that tile dolncstic do'^'s 
relationship Is with the wolves rather than with the j'^rollps of canlds 
represented In coyote, jackal, or fox. The ultimate wolf-ll ke ancestor 
of the dog Is yet to be determined, l)ut present eMdence fa\ors the 
view that It was not one of the large circumhoreal wolxes. hut jlo.sslhly 
a distinct and smaller species, from which both large and small l)reeds 
•of dogs have been derived. 

The domestic dogs of the American aborigines were (|ulte as truly 
typical dogs as those of Asia, and may be assumed to ha\e reached 
America from that continent, with their human companions. Al- 
though It Is possible that the larger dogs may Interbreed occa.slonally 
with wolf or coyote, there Is no good reason to suppose that such cross- 



ing has had much if any, influence on the originai stock. 

In a \ery general way, three types of dogs may be distinguished 
-among the American aborigines: (1) the large, broad-muzzled, Es- 
kimo Dog, with heavy coat and tail curled forward oxer the hip; 
(2) a larger and (3) a smaller Indian Dog, from which are probablx- to 
be derived sexeral distinct local breeds. Of the larger style of dog as 
many as eleven varieties may perhaps be distinguished; of the smaller, 
five. 

An interesting and suggestixe parallel is found among prehistoric 
European dogs, of which in late Neolithic and early Bronze periods 
there were a large and a .small type — Cfl?'^ miermcdiuff and C. 
palmtns — corresponding rather closely to the Larger or Common 
Indian Dog and the Small Indian Dog or Techichi. The obvious 
probability is that these two general types of dogs were then widely 
cultivated in Asia, and at a \ery early period reached Europe and 
America with the human immigrants. In a similar way the Eskimo 
Dog is of a type common to northern Asia and Europe, "and doubtless 
reached America with the Eskimos, whose arrival, at least in eastern 
America is usually regarded as relatively recent. 



[Begin Page: Page 504] 



504 lU I.I.KIIN: MISKIM OK ( OMTAHA m K ZOIILOUY 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



Acconci, L. 

1880. Continviazionc dollo studio doi rosti fossili rinvenuti nella cavorna 
di Cucigliaiia. Ordine dei carnivoii: famiglia dei Canidi. Atti Soc. 
Toso. soi. nat. Pisa. Proc. verb., 2, j). 41-42. 
Acosta, J. de. 

1590. Historia naturai y morai dc ias Indias, etc. Seviiia, Svo, 536 pp. 
aud index. 
Allen, J. A. 

1 885. On an extinct tj'pe of dog from Ely Cave, Lee Countj'^ Virginia. 
[With a note] on the age of the Ely Cave by N. S. Shaler. Mem. 
'^LC. Z., 10, 13 pp., 3pls. 
Anderson, R. J. 

1901 . Abnormal dentition in the dog. Irish nat., 10, p. 89-90. 
Anutschin, D. N. 

ISSI. [Ueber die Hunderassen der Steinperiode an den Ufern des Lado- 

gasees]. 5th Archiiol. congr. Tiflis. (Russian). 

1S82. [Zwei Rassen des Hundes aus dem Torfmooren des Ladogasees]. 

Moskou. (Russian). See Arch, anthrop., 1882, 14, p. 333. 

Audubon, J. J., and Bachman, J. 

1849-54. The quadrupeds of North America. Xew York, 8vo, 3 vols., 
illus. 



[Bancroft, Edward). 

1769. An essay on the natural history of Guiana. London. 
Bannister, H. M. 

1869. The Esquimaux dog. Amer. nat., 3, p. 522-530. 
Bartlett, A. D. 

1890. Observations on wolves, jackals, dogs, and foxes. Proc. Zool. 
.soc. London, p. 46-48. 
Barton, B. S. 

1805. Some account of the different species and varieties of native Ameri- 
can, or Indian dogs. Barton's Med. and phys. journ., 1 , pt. 2, p. 3-31 . 
Bartram, William. 

1792. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, east and 
west Florida, etc. London, 8vo., illus. 
Baudouin, M. 

1910. Le chien en prehistoire. Bull. Soc. prehist. de France, 7, p. 314- 

316. 

Blainville, H. M. H. Ducrotay de. 

1841 . Ostecgraphie ou description iconographique comparee du squelette 
et du systeme dentaire des cinq classes d'animaux vertebres recents et 
fossiles pour servir de base a la zoologie et h la geologie. Mammiferes, 
Carnassiers, vol. 2. Paris, 4to, illus. 



[Begin Page: Page 505] 

AI,l,l-.\; DOGS OF TIIK AMKKKAX AHoHKilNKS. 505 

Blanford, W. T. 

1 S77. jl'i-ofi'ssor Jcittclos' rosoarchcs on doinostic <l()|is|. Proi-. Asialic- 
soc. HciifiJil, I). 114-117. 
Boule, Marcellin. 

1SS9. Les pn'-decesscurs dc nos canides. Compt. rend. Acad. sci. Pari.s 
108, p. 201-203. 
Bourguignat, J. B, 

1875. Rccherchos sur le.'^ ossements de Canidae constats en France a 
I'otat fossilc pendant la periodc quarlernaire. Ann. .sci. geoL, 6, art. 
(i, m pp., pi. 16-18. 
Brown, Robert. 

1868. On tine nianunalian fauna of Greenland. Proc. Zcx.l. .soc London 

p. 330-362. 

1875. The same, reprinted, with corrections and annotations hy the 

author. ,34 j)]). 

Browne, Patrick. 



1789. The civil and naturai iiistory of .Jamaica. London, 4to. 
Burton, L. A. 

1917. Raising woif dogs. Forest and stream. 87, p. 448. 
Catiin, George. 

1841 . Letters and notes on tine manners, customs, and condition of tine 
Nortii American Indians. 8vo., 2 vols., illus. 
Children, J. G. 

1 827. On the Esquimaux dog. Zool. journ.. 3, p. 54-56, pi. 1 . 
Colenso, William. 

1878. Notes, chiefly historical, on the ancient dog of the New Zealanders. 
Trans, and proc. New Zealand inst., 10, p. 13.5-155. 

Cooper, J. M. 

1917. Analyticiil and critical bibliography of the tribes of Tierra del 
Fuego and adjacent territory. Bull. 63, U. S. bur. Amer. ethnol. 
Cope, E. D. 

1879. On the genera of Fehdae and Canidae. Proc. Acad. nat. sci. 
Phila.,p. 168-194. 

1879a. The Japanese Lap Dog (Dysodus pravus). Amer. nat., 13, p. 
655-656. 

1 883. On the extinct dogs of North America. Amer. nat.. 1 7, p. 235-249, 



fig. 1-14. 

1887. The pug-dog and the Chihuahua dog. Amer. nat.. 21 , p. 1 125- 

1126. 

1 893. [On a jaw of an Indian dog] in C. B. Moore's Certain shell heaps of 

the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto unexplored. Amer. nat., 27, 

p. 614, 3 figs. 

Cope, E. D., and Wortman, J. L. 

1 884. An account of the mammahan fauna of the PostpUocene deposits, 
in the state of Indiana. 14th ann. rept. state geol. Indiana, pt. 2, p. 4-62, 
pi. 1-6. (See p. 8, footnote). 



[Begin Page: Page 506] 

."I0(> lU I.I.KHN: mi skim OV rOMPAHAIIVK ZoiiLOOV. 

Coues, Elliott. 

1ST. 'I 'riio prairie wolf, or eoyoto: Coiiis hilmns. Ainor. iiat.. 7, p. 385- 
389. 

1 870. Hovcrsioii of the tlo<i to tlio feral state. Forest aiiti stream, 7, 
p, Jl.-i. 



Cunningham, R. O. 

1871 . Xotcs on the natural history of the Strait of Magellan and west 
ooa.st of Patagonia made dvn'ing the voyage of H. M. S. ' Nn.<isaii ' in 
the years 1860. 67, 68, ()9. K(Hnburgh, 8vo., illus. 

Cuvier, F. 

ISUS. Oljservations sur le cliien des habitans de la Xouvelle-Hollande, 
preeedees de quelques refie.xions sur les facultes morales des animau.v. 
Ann. Alus. d'hist. nat. Paris, 1 1 , p. 458-476. 

1810. Recherches sur les differences d'organisation qui existent entre Ics 
races des chiens domestiques. Xouv. bull, des sci. Soc. philom. Paris, 

2. p. 18.5-187. 

1811. Recherches sin* les caracteres osteologiques qui distinguent les 
principales races du chien domestique. Ann. Mus. d'hist. nat. Paris, 
18, p. 333-3.53, i.-l. 18-20. 

Dechambre, Paul. 

1 891 . Xote sur les chiens de la Terre de Feu. Mission sci. du Cap 

Horn, 1882-1883, 7, p. .391-392. 

1894. Race canine. Cla.ssification et pointage. Mem. Soc. zool. 

France, 7. p. 331 -.362. 



Dbnitz, 

1869. [Ueber eine monstrosc schadelbildung eines funhses aus Schle- 
sfen]. Sitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, 1868, p. 20-21. 
Duerst, J. U. 

1 !»()4. Die tierweit der ansiedeiungen am sclniossberge zu burg an der 
Sjiree. Arcli, antlirop., newser., 2, p. 233-294, pi. 16-20. 
Duges, Alfredo. 

1 S82. El perro de Chihuahua. La naturaleza, 5, j). 1 4-1 7, fig. 1 -3. 
Eastman, C. R. 

1 91 6. }lunting-dog.s of the Ancients. Amer. mus. journ., 1 6, p. 403- 
408. 6 figs. 
Eaton, G. F. 

1898. The preliistoric fauna of Block Island [R. I.], as indicated by its 

ancient .shell-heaps. Amer. journ. sci., ser. 4, 6, p. 137-159, pi. 2, 3. 
1916. The collection of osteological material from Machu Picchu. Mem. 
Conn. acad. arts and .sci., 5, 96 pp., .39 pis., 2 tables, map. 
Eiffe, O. E. 

1909. Kreuzung von polarhund und Dingo. Zool. beobachter (Zool. 
garten), 50, p. 312-313. 
Ermel, Alexander. 



1889. Eine rei.sc nach der Robinson-Crusoe-lnsel. Hamburg, 8vo, 
1.34 pp., 11 pis., map. 



[Begin Page: Page 507] 

AI.I.KN: l)(»(;s ol- TIIK AMKKK an AHnHICINKS. o()7 

Filhol, Henri 

ISSiv Observations relalivt-s a\i.\ cliiciis iictucis ct aiix caniassiers fos- 
siless'i'ii ra|)pn)i'liaiit Ic plus. Arcli. Miis. d'lii'^l. iial. I,\<)n, 3. p. 70-97, 
pi. 5. 
Fisclier, J. B. 

1S2'.). Synopsis Manuualimn. Stuttfiart. Svo. 
Fitzinger, L. J. 

1S(){). riitcrsucliuiijjen iiber ilic alistanimunp: des luindps. Sitzl). 1\. 

akad. wiss Wit'n, niatli.-nat. d., 54, ]it. 1 , p. 39t)-4o7. 
1867. Die ragen des zaiimeri Inundes. Sitzb. K. akad. wiss. \\'i(ii, 
matin. -iiat. ci., 56, i)t. 1 , p. 377-o07, oi4-58o. 77(3-823. 
Gervais, Paui. 

1 87."). iiemarqiics au sujet du ciiien domestic juc. Jejuni, zooi.. 4, p. 1 1 9. 
Gibbs, George. See Suckiey, G., ami 
Gidley, J. W. 



1913. Prqiiininary rci)ort on a recently discovered Pleistocene cave 
deposit near Cumberland. Maryland. Free. I'^. S.'X. M.. 46, p. 93- 
102, fig.l-8a. 
Glahn, H.C. 

1784. Om den Gr'^nlandske hund. Xve samluufi, K. Xonske vid.-selsk. 
skr. Trondhjem, 1, p. 48.1-496. 
Gray, J. E. 

1867. On the skull of the Chine.se pug-nosed spaniel or lap-dog. Proc. 

Zool. soc. London, p. 40-43. fig. 1-4. 

1 869. Note on the varieties of dogs. Ann. mag. nat. hist., ser. 4, 3, 

p. 236-240. 

Guyon, . 

1866. Des animaux disparus de la Martinique et de la Guadeloui)e depuis 
notre etabiissement dans ces lies. Compt. rend. Acad. sci. Paris, 63, 
p. 589-597. 
Hammeran, A. 

1895. Zur geschichte der hunde-rassen. Zool. garten, 36, p. 12-17. 
53-. 59, 88-92, 110-117,1 47-1 .53. 
Harlan, Richard. 

1 825. Fauna Americana: being a description of the niammiferous ani- 



mals inhabiting Nortli America. Pliiiadeiplnia, 8vo. 
Harmon, D, W. 

1820. A journai of voyages and traveis in tine interior of North America, 
[etc.]. Andover, Bvo, 432 pp. 
Harting, J. E. 

1 884. Dogs: ancient and modern. Zooiogist, ser. 3, 8, p. 393-41 1 . 
Heame, Samuei. 

1 796. A journey from Prince of Waies's Fort, in Hudson's Bay, to the 
northern ocean .... in the years 1769 . . . .-1772. 
Hercuiais, J. K. d'. 

1884. Les chiens des Fuegiens. Science et nature, 1, sem. 1, p. 137-140,' 

fig- 



[Begin Page: Page 508] 

508 Hil.l.KiiN : .MISKIM OF (. OMPAKATIVE ZO(")LOGY. 

Hernandez (<»/• Firuamicz), Francisco. 

It),")!. Historiae animaiium ct mincraiium Novae Hispaniae. Liber 
miirvis in sex traetatiis divisus. Rome, foiio, 96 pp. (in Recchi and 
Lynceus, i<i51). 
Hiizheimer, Max. 



190."). Variationen des canidengebisses mit besonderer beriicksichtigung 

des haushundes. Zeitsch. niorph. ii. anthrop., 9, p. 1-40, pi. 1-5. 
1908. Beitrag zur kenntnis der nordafrikanischen schakale nebst 
bemerkungen iiber dercn verhaltnis zu den haushunden, insbesondere 
nordafrikanischen und altag>'ptisolnen Inunderassen. Zoologica, 20, 
no. .53, 1 1 1 pp., 4 tables, 10 pis. 
Hind,H. Y. 

1 S.")9. Xortli-west territory. Reports of progress; togetlier witli a pre- 
liminary and general report on the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan 
exploring expedition, made under instructions from the Provincial 
•Secretary, Canada. Toronto, 4to, illus. 
Holland, W.J. ' 

1 908. A preliminary account of the Pleistocene fauna discovered in a 
cave opened at Frankstown, Pennsylvania, in April and May, 1907. 
Ann. Carnegie mus., 4, p. 228-233, pis. 57, .58. 

HoUard, . 

1 859. Nouvel exemple de croisement fecond du Canis lupus et du Canis 
'fatniliaris. Compt. rend. Acad. sci. Paris, 48, p. 1072-1073. 
Hug, E. 

1906. [On Cnnis le mirei, a neolithic dog from .Jura]. Bull. Soc. prehist. 
de France. (Xot seen). 
Hunter, John. 



1 787. Observations tending to sinew tliat tine woif, jackai, and dog, .ire 

aii of tine same .species. Pliii, trans. Roy. soc. London, 77, p. 253-266. 

1 789. A suppiementary ietter on tine identity of tine species of tlie dog, 

woif, and jackai. Pliii, trans. Roy. soc. London, 79, pt. 1 , p. 1 60-1 61 . 

Hutton, F. W. 

1898. Note on the ancient Maori dog. Trans, and proc. New Zealand 
Inst., 30, p. 151-15.5, pi. 15. 
Htixley, T. H. 

1 880. On the cranial and dental characters of the Canidae. Proc. 
Zool. soc. London, p. 238-288. 
Hyades, P. and Deniker, Joseph. 

1891 . Mi.ssionscientifiquedu Cap Horn. 1882-1883. 7. Anthropologie, 
Ethnograj'^hie. Paris, 4to, illus. 
Ihering, Hermann von. 

1913. Le chien domestique des Calchaquis. Revista Mus. de La Plata, 
20, p. 101 -106, 3 figs. 
Jeit teles, L. H. 

1 872. Die vorgeschichthchen alter thiimer der stadt Olmiitz und ihrer 



[Begin Page: Page 509] 

ALLKN: dogs of the AMKKKAX AHOKKilXKS. 509 

rn.Kobung. Mitth. Anthrop. go«. Wic.i, 2, p. IS-32, 53-62 8G-91 
1 30-1 36, 1 62-1 82, 21 1 -224, 233-247, 278-288, 1 pi. " ' 

1877. Die stainniv;iter unserer liuiirle-rassen. WicMi. (See also Vrcli 
f. naturg., 1877,43, pt. 2, p. 80). 
Jentink, P. A. 

1S<)7. Tine dofi of (li(. Teiigger. Notes Leycien mus., 18, p. 217-220 r)l 
4, 0. " 

Keller, Conrad. 

HK)4. Zur abstammungsgeschichte unserer hunde-ras.seii. Eine abwehr 
Kcgimuber Herrn. Prof. Th. Studer. Vierteljahnsschr. d. Naturf ges 
Zurich, 48, p. 440-457. 
Keller, Otto. 

1909. Die antike tierwelt. Leipzig, 8vo, illus. 

1912. Die herkunft der europaischen haustierwclt. Verb. 8 Int zoo! - 
kongr., p. 356-365. 
Kohler, E. M. 



AAACy_2A""'A ' AA"i '" A' AA""A","'_ A<<"'_ 3_""A<<"' Oy q 

Kohn, F. G. 

1911. Beitrag zur kenntms der haut der nacktiiundes. Zool jahrb 
Anat.,31,p. 427-438, pi. 16. 
KreflEt, Gerard. 

1 866. On the vertebrated animals of tine Lower Murray and Darling 
their habits, economy, and geographical distribution. Trans Phil' 
soc. N. S.Wales, 1, p. 1-33. 
Kreyenberg, . 

1 91 0. Chinesische hunderassen und chinesische jagdhunde Zool 
beobachter (Zool. garten), 61 , p. 289-292 
Kuhn, Julius. 

1887. Fruchtbarkeit der bastarde von schakal und haushund. Zool 
garten, 28, p. 161-163. 
Kulagin, Nicolaus. 

1892. Mittheilung uber die hunderasse Laika (Eskimohunde) in Russ- 
land. Zool. jahrb. Syst., 6, p. 435-441 , pi. 20. 
Kunstler, J., and Chaine, J. 

1906. Anomalie dentaii-e du chien. Proces-verb. seances Soc. sci. phys 
et nat. Bordeaux for 1 905-1 906, p. 26-27 

Lambe, L. M. 



1907. Note on the occurrence of a supernumerary tooth in a dog 
Ottawa nat., 21 , p. 25-26, fig. 

Landois, Hermann. 

1883. Ueber ein anatomisches unterscheidungsmerkmai zwischen haus- 
hund und woif. Morph. jahrb., 9, pt. 1 , p. 1 63-1 65 
Langkavei, Bemh. 

1S92. Ueber Dingos, Pariah-und neuseeiiindische hunde. Zooi. garten, 
33, p. 33-38. 



[Begin Page: Page 510] 

510 m l.i.KTIN: MISKVM OF COMPAKATIVK ZOOLOCiY. 

ISitVt. Dopt; and savages. Ann. ropt. Regents Sniithson. inst. ior 1898, 
p. (ioi-67o (transi. from Intern, areii. ethnogr., 8, p. 109-149). 
Lataste, Femand. 

ISSS. I. a prrniiore prenioiaire du ehien cst-oiie nionophysaire ou diphy- 
-aire".' I.e naturaii.ste, ser. 2, 10, ]). 20-22. 
LeConte, John. 

1856. Notice of American animais, formerly known, i)ut now forgotten 
or iost. Pror. Acad. nat. sci: Phiia., 7, p. 8-14. 



Lendenfeld, Robert von. 

1889. Bilder aus dem an.stralischen nrwald. IV. Der Dingo. Zool. 
garten, 30, p. 43-49. fig. 

Leseble, L. 

1890. Les dingos an ehenil du .laniin zoologique d'aeclimatation. Rev. 
sci. nat. appliquees. Bull. ni(>ns. soe. nat. d'acclim. de France, 37, p. 
681-684. 

Lewis, Meriwether, ami Clark, William. 

1 905. Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition 1 804-1 806, 
etc. . . . edited by Reuben G. Thwaites. 8vo, 7 vols, illus. 
Livermore, S. T. 

1 877. A history of Block Island, (R. I.] from its discovery, in 1 51 4, to 
the i)re.s('nt time, 1876. Hartford, Conn. 
Lonnberg, Einar. 

1 91 9. Remarks on .some -South American Canidae. Arkiv zool., 1 2, 

no. LS, 18 pp., 4 figs. 

Loomis, F. B., and Young, D. B. 

1912. On the shell heaps of Maine. Amer. journ. sci., ser. 4, 34, p. 17- 
42, figs. 
Lord, J. K. 



1866. The naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia. Lon- 
don, 8vo, 2 vols., illus. 

Lortet, , and Gaillard, C. 

1909. La faune momifiee de I'ancienne Egypte et recherches anthropo- 
losiques. Arch. Mus. d'hist. nat. Lyon, 10, art. 2, 336 pp., 223 figs. 
Lucas, F. A. 

1897. A dfig of the ancient Pueblos. Science, new ser., 5, p. 544. 
McCoy, Frederick. 

1862. Note on the ancient and recent natural history of Victoria. Ann. 
mag. nat. hi.st., ser. 3, 9, p. 137-150. 
MacCurdy, G. G. 

1914. The i)assing of a Connecticut rock shelter. Amor, journ. sci., 
.<er. 4, 38, p. 511 -.522. pi. 4. 
MacFarlane, R. 

1905. Notes on mannuals collected and observed in the northern 
Mackenzie River district. Northwest Territories of Canada, with 
remarks on explorers and exjjiorations of the Far'^North. Proc. U. S. 
N. M., 28, p. 67.3-764. pi. 30-34. 



[Begin Page: Page 511] 



AI.LKN : DOGS OF TMK AMKKKAN AHORIGINKS. 51 1 

Manners -Smith, J. 

HtOJ. Wolf liyhritis in (Jilfiil. Jouin. Asiatic- soc. Bciigul. 70, pt. 2, 
p. 143-146. 
Martinoli, C. 

lODS. Algiinas observacionos solnrc las anoinalias dcntarias del perro. 
An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, ser. 3, 9, p. 459-469, tabic. 
Mercer, H. C. 

1897. An exploration of aboriginal shell heaps revealing tra(;es of canni- 
balism on York River, Maine. Publ. Univ. Penna. philoL, lit. and 
arch.. 6, p. 11 1-137, fig. 40-44. 
Miller, G. S., Jr. 

1912. Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe (Europe exclusive 

of Russia) in the collection of the British museum, hndon, 8vo, illas. 

1912a. The names of the large wolves of northern and western North 

America. Smithsonian misc. coll., 59, no. 15. 5 pp. 

1916. Bones of mannnals from Indian sites in Cuba and Santo Domingo. 

Smithsonian misc. coll., 66, no. 12, 10 pp.. 1 pi. 

Mills, W.C. 



1906. Baum prehistoric village. Ohio arch, and hist. publ.. 15, |). 44- 
136. 85 text-figs. 
Mivart, St. George. 

1890. Note on canine dental abnormalities. Proc. Zool. soc. London, 

p. 37(>-378, fig. 

1890a. Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes: A monograph of the Canidae. 

London, 8vo. illus. 

Mosch, O. 

1906. Beitrag zm- kenntnis des wolfes. Verh. Schweiz. natmf. ges. 
St. Gallen, 89, p. 72-73. 
Molina, J. L 

1808. The geographical, natural and civil history of Chile. Middletown, 
Gt.. 2 vols., 8vo. 
Moore, C. B. 

1892-3. Certain shell heaps of the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto 
unexplored. Amer. nat., 1892, 26, p. 912-922, pi. 24; 1893, 27, p. 
8-1 3, 113-11 7, 605-624, 708-723. 

1894. Certain sand moimds of the St. John's River, Horida. Jouru. 
Acad. nat. sci. Phila., ser. 2, 10. p. 5-103, illus. 

1896. Additional mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida. Mound 
investigation on the ea.st coast of Florida. Certain P'lorida coast 
mounds north of the St. Johns River. [Philadelphia; privately printed]. 



4to, 30pp.,2pls. 

1897. Certain aboriginal mounds of tine Georgia coast. Journ. Acad, 
nat. sci. Pliila., ser. 2, 11 . p. 5-138, illus. 

1 899. Certain aboriginal mounds of the coast of South Carolina. Journ. 
Acad. nat. sci. Phila.. ser. 2, 1 1 , p. 1 46-1 66. 



[Begin Page: Page 512] 

512 lUI.I.KTIN: MISKIM OF ( OMI'AUATIVK ZO<)LO(;Y. 

1907. Crystal Rivor rt'visiteil. Journ. Acad. nat. sol. Phila., sor. 2, 13. 
p. 41)0-425, ilhis. 
Mortillet, G. de. 

1S80. Lo chion. Bull. Soc. d'anthrop., ser. 3, 12, p. 425-448. 
Morton, S. G. 

1850. [On the antiquity of some races of dogs]. Proc. Acad, nat- sci. 
Phila.. 6, p. 85-89. 

1851 . [On American Indian dogs.] Proc. Acad. nat. sci. Phila., 5, p. 
130-140. 

Nathusius, Hermann von. 



1874. Benierkungen iiber die schiidel der Eskimohunde. Die zwcite 

deutsclne Nordpolar falirt in den jaliren 1 869 und 1 870, 2, p. 1 75- 

177. 

Neliring, Alfred. 

1882. I'eber einige Canis-scliadel mit auffalliger zaiinformel. Sitzb. 
Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, no. 5, p. 65-68. 

1883. Ueber einige nachtraglich an derstiitte des Spandauer Bronze- 
fvmdes zum vorschein gckommcne menschliche und thierische reste. 
Zeitsehr. ethnoL, 16, p. 357-359. 

1884. I'eber eine grosse wolfsahnliche hunde-ra.«!se der vorzeit (Co7ii.s' 
fam. (lecumanus Nehring) und ueber ihre abstammung. Sitzb. Ges. 
naturf. freunde Berlin, p. 153-165. 

1884a. Ueber Rassebildung bei den Inca-hunden aus den griibern von 
Ancon. Kosmos (Zeitsehr. ges. entw.-lehr.), 1 5, p. 94-1 11,3 text-figs. 

18S4b. Mammals. In Reiss and Stiibel's Peruvian antiquities. The 
necropolis of Ancon in Peru, vol. 3, pt. 15, London and Berlin, folio. 

1885. Ueber rassenbikhmg bei den Inca-himden von dem todtenfelde 
bei Ancon in Peru. Sitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, p. 5-13. 

1885a. Ueber altperuanische hundemumien und ueber rassebildung bei 



den sogenannten Inca-hunden. Verh. lierlin. ges. anthrop., ethn. u. 
urgesch., j). 518-521. 

1 886. Ueber eine neuc seudung niumificirter Inca-hunde von Ancon in 
Peru. Sitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Berlin, p. 100-102. 

1887. Ueber Cuo7t ruHians von Java und Lupus japotdcu.s von Nippon. 
Sitz. Ges. naturf. freunde Beriin, p. 66-69. 

1887a. Ueber die mumie eines ianglnaarigen Inca-liundes von Ancon 
in Peru. Sitzb. Ges. naturf. freunde Beriin, p. 139-141. 

1887b. Zur abstammung der liunde-ras.sen. Zooi. jalirb., 3, p. 51-58. 

1890. Ueber Cuon aipinus fonNiiis Nelnring, nebst bemerkungen iiber 
einige andere fossiie Caniden. Neues jalnrb. min., pt. 2, p. 34-52, pi. 
2 

Newcombe, C. F. 

1900. Guide to tine antlnropoiogicai coiiection in tlie Provincial Museum. 
Victoria, B. C, 8vo, iiius. 
Noack, Til. 

1 887. '^'^olfbasta'^de. Zooi. garten, 28, p. 1 06-1 1 1 . 



[Begin Page: Page 513] 



AI.I.KN: D()(iS OF TIIK AMKHK.W ABORIGLVES. )\.> 

1907. Wolfo, schakiile, vorgeschiclilliclio uiul iicuzoitliclio lumshundo. 

Zool. anz.,31, p. (iOO-GOo. 

lOOS. Feberdie abstamnninji norclrussischor liaushuiulc. Zool. anz., 

33. p. 2.')4-26-4. 

1909. Hausticre dor Altai-kalmiicken. I. Hiiiido iiiul kjUzcii. Zool. 
anz., 34, p. G83-695. 

1910. Ostafrlkanlsche havlshullde des Xyassagebletes. Zool. anz., 36, 
p. 337-347. 

Otto, Hugo. 

1909. Bcobaohtungon an verwilderton hmidcn. Zool. Ix-obachter 
(Zool. garten), 50, p. 176-178. 

Oviedo y Valdes, G. F. 

l.")3.o. Historia general y natural de la.s Indias, islas y ticrra-flrnle del 
Mar Oceano. (Reprint, Madrid, 4 vols, 4to, 1851-55). 
Packard, A. S. 

1 885. Origin of the American varieties of the dog. Amor, nat., 1 9, 



p. 896-901 . Zoologist, 1 885, ser. 3, 9, p. 367-372. 

Paris, Paui. 

1910. Un cas d'lnybridation entre ioup et cliien. Buii. Soc. zooi. France,'^ 
35, p. 58-59. 

Peizein, Augvist von. 

1886. Eine studie iiber die abstammung der liunderassen. Zooi. jalnrb.,. 
1 , p. 225-240. 

Pliiiippi, R. A. 

1 886. Ueber die veranderungen weiclie der menscli in der fauna CIniie's 
bewirkt liat. Festsclir. Ver. f. naturk. zu Cassei zur oO-jalir. beste- 
Inens, p. 1-20. 
Phiiiips, E.G. 

1885. Tine dog of sacred iiistory. Zooiogist, ser. 3, 9, p. 1-3. 
Pictet, F. J. 

1853. Traite de paieontoiogie ou liistoire natureiie des animaux fossiies 
consideres dans ieurs rapports zooiogiques et geoiogiques. Paris, ed. 2, 
8vo, 4 vois. 
Pietrement, C. A. 

1888. L'origine et I'evoiution inteiiect ueiie du cliien d'arret. Bull. 
Soc. anthrop.. ser. 3, 1 1 , p. 320-365. 



Pocock, R. I. 

1900. Hybrid dog and fox. Zoologist, ser. 4, 4, p. 477-478. 
Putnam, F. W. 

1S96. [Remarks on dog-skulls from Ohio]. In ]Moore, C. B., 1896, p. 

26-27. 

Rasse, Baron H. de. 

1879. Les chiens sauvages et la grande perdrix de La Plata. Bull. Soc. 
acclimatation Paris, ser. 3, 6, p. 389-393. 
Recchi, N. A., and Ljmceus, J. T. 

1 651 . Rerum medicarum Xovae Hispaniae thesauras seu plantarum. 



[Begin Page: Page 514] 

ol4 bulletin: mi'sei'm of comparative zoology. 

animaliuin, inineniliuin niexicanoruni Historia px Francisci Hernan- 
dez .... collecta, ete. Rome, 4to. 
Rengger, J. R. 

ISiU). Naturgesehiehte der .siiugethiere von Paraguay. Basel, 8vo. 
Richardson; John. 

IS'29. I'auna Boreali-aniericana; or the zoology of the northern parts of 



British America. 1, Quadrupeds. London, 4to. 
Ross, B. R. 

1 861 . A popular treatise on tine fur-bearing animals of the Mackenzie 
River district. Can. nat. &: geol., 6, p. 5-36. 

Ross, J. C. 

1835. Account of the objects in the several departments of natural 
historj', seen and discovered during the present expedition. In Ross, 
John, Appendix to the Narrative of a second voyage in search of a 
north-west passage, etc. London, 4to, illus. 
Rutimeyer, L. 

1 860. Untersuchung der tierreste aus den pfahlbauten der Schweiz. 
Mitth. Antiquar. ges. Zurich, 13, pt. 2. 

1 862. Die Fauna der pfahlbauten der Schweiz. Neue denkschr. 
allgem. 8chweiz. ges. naturw., 19, p. 1-248, pi. 1-6. 

Saint-Loup, Remy. 

1 892. Les ancetres de nos chiens. Le naturaliste, 1 4, p. 1 01 -1 02, 3 

text-figs. 

Schinz, H. R. 

1844. Systematisches verzeichniss aller bis jetzt bekannten saugethiere 
Oder Synopsis Mammalium nach dem Cuvier'schen System. Solo- 



thurn, 8vo. 
Schmerling, P. C. 

1833-4. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes 
de la Province de Liege. Liege, 2 vols., atlas. 
Schmitt, F, 

1903. Ueber das postembrj-onale wachstum des schadels verschiedener 
hunderassen. Arch, naturg., 69, pt. 1 , no. 1 , p. 69-134, pi. 4-5, table. 
Seler, E. 

1890. [The dog in ancient Mexico]. Congr. Americanistes, Berlin, 
1888,sess. 7, p. 321-324. 
Smith, C. Hamilton. 

1840. The naturalist's library. Mammalia. X. Dogs. Edinburgh, 
16 mo., illus. 
Spegazzini, Carlos. 

1882. Costumbres de los habitantes de la Tierra de Fuego. An. Soc. 
cient. Argentina, 14, p. 159-181. 
[Stockdale, Arthiir]. 

1 91 7. The hairless dog. Journ. heredity, 8, p. 51 9-520, figs. 21 , 22. 
Strobel, Pellegrino. 

1880. I>e razze del cane nolle terramarc deir Emilia. Bull, paleont. Ital., 
6, p. 1 3-2.5, 46-53, 1 1 0-1 30, 1 40-1 54, 1 69-1 79. 



[Begin Page: Page 515] 

AT,i,K\: nods OF Tin; a.mkkk a.\ ah«>uu;i\ks. 515 

Strobel, Pellegrino and Pigorini, Luigi. 

ISt)4. 1 .,- t(-m>iii:iic e la jjalafittc do! I'aiiiK'iise. Sccoiida relatione. Atti 

Sor. Ital. sci. nat. Milano, 7, art. 2, 152 pp., plate. 
Studer, Theophil. 

1879. Britrati /ur kenntniss dcr luiiKlciaccii in dcii j)faliil)auttMi. Arcli. 

anthrop., 12, p. 67-78, pi. 2. 

1883. Die thienvolt in den pfa!ill)auteii de.s Bielersec's. Mittli. Xaturf. 
ges. Bern, for 1 882, i)t. 2, Abhandlungen, p. 1 7-1 1 5, pi. 1 -5. 

1884. Nachtrag zu deni aiifsatze liber die thierwelt ill den pfahlbauten 
des Bi.>lersee's. Mitth. Xaturf. -<•... Bern, for 1888, pt. 1, Abhandlungen, 
p. 8-2G. pi. 1-6. 

1901 . Die praehistorischen Imnde in Hirer beziehung zu den gegenwartig 
lebenden rassen. Abh. Hdiweiz. palaontol. ges., 28, no 1 137 p.) 
9 pis., 18 text-figs. 

1904. Teber den deutseiien schaferhund und einige kynologische fragen. 



Mitth. Xaturf. ges. Bern, for 1903, p. 17-55, pi. 1-9. 

1905. IJtude sur un nouveau chieu preliistorique de la Russie. L'an- 
thropologie, 16, p. 269-285, 2 text-figs. 

1906. Ueber einen iiund aus der palaoUtliisclien zeit Russlands. Canis 
pouliatini. Zool. anz., 29, p. 24-35, pi. 1-2. 

1908. Sclnadel eines liundes aus einer praliistorisclien wolinstatte der 
liallstattzeit bei karlstein, amstgericlit Reiclienlnall. Mittln. Xaturf. ges. 
Bern, for 1907, p. 155-168, 2 pis. 

Suckley, George, and Gibbs, George. 

1860. Report upon tine mammals collected on the Survey. Rept. Expl. 
and surv. railroad from the Mississippi river to the Pacific Ocean, 12, 
Washington, 4to. 
Teit, James. 

1900. The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Mem. Amer. mus. 
nat. hist., 2, p. 163-392, pi. 3. 

1909. The Shuswap. Mem. Amer. mus. nat. hist., 4, p. 443-789. d1 . 
13-14. 

Thorndike, T. W. 

1911. The Indian sled dogs of Xorth America. Recreation, February, 



p. 74-77, 101-102. 
Tiemann, Fr. 

1865. Meine hundin. Bastard von einem nackten afrikanischen hunde 
und einer hiesigen wachtelhiindin. Zool. garten, 6, p. 430-434. 
Toni, Etorre de. 

. 1897. Sopra un ibrido naturale di Canis familians e C. vulpes. Atti R. 
ist. Veneto sci. lett. ed arti, ser. 7, 8, p. 91 2-91 6. 
Toiissaint, H. 

1876. Des rapports qui existent, cliez le cliien, entre le nombre des dents 
molaires et les dimensions des os de ia face. Compt. rend. Acad. sci. 
Paris, 82, p. 754-756. 



[Begin Page: Page 516] 

5tl6 lUI.I.KTIN: MISKIM OF ( OMI'AU All VK ZO()LO(iY. 
Tozzer, A. M., and Allen, G. M. 

1910. Animal tigures in tho Maya codices. Papers Peabody nuis., 4, 
p. 273-372, pi. 1-39. 

Trouessart, E. L. 

1911. IjO luiip do rinde {Canis paUipea Sykes), souche ancestrale du 



chieii doniostiqno. Conipt. rend. Acad. sci. Paris, 152, p. 909-913, 2 



figs. 



Tscliudi, J. J. von. 

1844-6. Untersucliimgen fiber die Fauna Peruana. St. Gaiion, 4to, 

iiius. 

Vancouver, George. 

1798. A voyage of discovery to tlie Nortli Pacific Ocean, and round tlie 
worid, etc. London, 4to, 3 vois., iiius. 
Vieira, L. 

1S94. Mtudo comparative du squeiette du cliien et du ioup. Annaes sci. 
nat., 1,p. 109-114. 
Watson, James. 

1909. Tlie dog book. New York, iarge 8vo, iiius. 
Warren, Ernest. 

1910. On a biack, Inairiess duiker and dog and a buiidog-lneaded caif. 
Ann. Natai mus., 2, p. 235-252, pi. 10-13, 3 text-figs. 

Wliite, Tayior. 

1 890. On tine wiid dogs of New Zeaiand. Trans, and proc. Now Zeaiand 

inst., 22, p. 327-330. 



1 892. On the native dog of New Zealand. Trans, and proc. New Zea- 
land Inst., 24, p. .540-.557. 
Wllckens, Martin. 

1 885. Ueberslcht liber die forschungen auf dem geblete der palaonto- 
logle der haustlere. 8. Die hundeartlgen tiere (Canlden) des Dilu- 
viums. Biol, centralbl., 5, p. 597-604, 621-627. 

1 886. Ueberslcht tiber die forschvmgen auf dem geblete der palaontologle 
der haustlere. 9. Die vorgeschlchtllchen und die pfahlbau-llunde. 

Biol, centralbl., 6, p. 719-729, 751-757. 

WIndle, B. C. A., and Humphreys, J. 

1890. On some cranial and dental characters of the domestic dog. Proc. 
Zool. soc. London, p. .5-29. 
WInshIp, G. P. 

1 904. The journey of Coronado, 1 540-1 542, from the City of Mexico to 
the Grand Canon of the Colorado and the Buffalo Plains of Texas, 
Kansas, and Nebraska as told by himself and his followers. Trans- 
lated and edited with an Introduction. New York, 12 mo. Illus. 
WIssler, Clark. 

1917. The American Indian. An Introduction to the anthropology of 
the New World. New'^ York, 8vo, Illus. 



[Begin Page: Page 517] 

Ai.r.Kx: n<>(;s „k tiik amkhuan aiu)hi(;inks. .-,17 

Woldrich, J. N. 

1 S77. lebcr oincu uvncu l.aushu.ul ,ler Bronzozcit (Canis familiari, 

Mitth. Anthrop. ges. Wicn, 7, p. 61-85, pi 1-5 

1879. Ueber Caniden aus de.n Diluvium. Dcnksc-lir. K. akui wiss 

'^Men, inatln.-nat. ci., 39, pt. 2, p. 97-148, pi 1-6 

1 882. Beitrage zur goscliiclitc des fossiien Inundes, nebst bemorkungon 

1882a. [Die b.sliengcn resuitate dor forscliung beziigiich des nraimtor- 
isclien Inunde. ] Mittli. Antlirop. ges. Wien, 12, p 27-31 

IJ D 153 iL" """""" "" """""," A _ _"'AAA<<p_ A__ AA'j.A 

1886'^ La descendance des races du ciiien doniestique en Europe 
L liomme, Journ. iiius. sci. antlirop., 3, p 65-68 

'Tnz K Tk.ul wi'fw'"'^ ab..tamnu.ng der europaischon hunderacen. 

1 QQC TT //"•'• "'"'" J'^'^th.-nat. cL, 23, p. 1 2-1 6. 

1 898. Lebersicht der wirbelthierfauna des " Bohmischen Massivs" 
'^ ahrend der anthropozoischen epoche. Jahrb. K. k. geol. reician lalt 
"" len, 47, p. 394-428. icicu&anstait 



Wolfgramm, Albert. 

1 894_ Die einwirknmg der gefangenschaft auf die gestaltung des wolfs- 
sclnadels Zool. jahrb. Syst., 7, p. 773-822. pi. 24-26 
wyman, Jennes. 

1 868'^ An accouot of some kjoekkenmoeddiugs, or slieU-lieaps i„ Maine 

Zaclier, G. > '^ • > p- '^o. 

1898. Wiewurdederliundzumliaustiere? xXatur, 47, p. 397-399. 



[Begin Page: Page 518]